Aren't you assuming something here? Remember the hazards of assuming? I didn't read one word in that article that said that you would be paying for the programming that the commercials were in.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Patent Application Reveals Flexible Integration of Advertising Viewing in Video Files
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Aren't you assuming something here? Remember the hazards of assuming? I didn't read one word in that article that said that you would be paying for the programming that the commercials were in.
Be careful who you are calling Sheeple; after all, Apple's flock is far smaller than that other brand's.
What's this "we" business? I grew up with HBO for my entire life, and absolutely cannot stand commercial interruptions in the midst of a movie. Even the shows that I watched as a kid were 15 minute "episodes", 2 of which were in one show, with commercials between them. The actual episode was never interrupted. Commercial interruptions are a royal pain in the a**.
Also ABC does the exact same thing as what Apple described in there patent, when you try to skip a ad in a ep on ABC it will play the ad automatically, but if you watched the ad already, the section up to the part you skip to is unlocked(no ads).
darn.. we r geeks...**** advertisements.
But that is fersure Charlie from Lost in that pic
Well yeah. That's the idea.
I picked out this comment to reply to because it's both succinct and oh-so-typical.
I don't mean to get all lecturey, but it's blindingly obvious that too many people lack even the most basic understanding of what patents are and why they exist.
Let's start with an assumption: Innovation is good. It's just inherently good, regardless of the details. Inventing something new, or materially improving an existing thing, is good, and we want to encourage that.
So we make a deal, you and I. You go off and invent something; this will be difficult, and it will take a lot of time and money. Once you've invented it, you publish to the whole world all the fiddly little details of your invention. In return, I will grant you a temporary monopoly on that invention. For a limited amount of time (set by law) you can sue anybody who copies your idea, and collect damages.
That's our deal. You share your secrets with the world, and in return you get a temporary guaranteed monopoly. That's what a patent is.
Patents are good things. They encourage innovation while simultaneously guaranteeing that everybody who participates in the system shares everything they come up with. The incentive to participate is the fact that for a limited time twenty years in the US you get that idea all to yourself, guaranteed.
But you don't have to participate in the patent system, and in fact many people don't. Why? Because the patent system requires that you publicly disclose all the details of your innovation. You're protected for 20 years, but after that time is up, your innovation goes into the public domain for anybody to look up and use. You have the option instead of keeping your innovation a secret, and thus trying to maintain an indefinite monopoly. But this is problematic, because there's nothing stopping others from copying the superficial aspects of your idea and coming up with their own under-the-hood details. Which is just as bad for the inventor, in practical terms, as having his idea stolen from out of his filing cabinet.
So the patent system works. It encourages innovation because it guarantees a 20-year monopoly on the results. It also encourages sharing knowledge and ideas, because you have to in order to get that 20-year monopoly. I know this phrase gets thrown around carelessly a lot, but in this case literally everybody wins!
Now, is 20 years too long for patents to last? Maybe; we can talk about that. Are the requirements for getting a patent too lenient? Should inventions have to be described in greater detail (including reference implementations for computer algorithms)? Maybe; we can talk about that too.
But people who just declare that patents are unfair, or that they suck, or that we should abolish them entirely are, not to put too fine a point on it, idiots. And speaking for myself, I really wish they'd either crack a book once in a while, or shut the hell up.
I don't like this at all. Hulu, ABC.com and many other network streaming sites (ie fox.com, nbc.com) already have this. Why would anyone allow Apple to patent this now when many others are already using it?
Forcibly made to watch adverts? No thank you mr jobs. Carry on on this route and watch people leave you beloved eco system.
I find it annoying enough not being able to skip past the piracy section or advert on a DVD!.
I find it annoying enough not being able to skip past the piracy section or advert on a DVD!.
Those models are on a streaming basis. Presumably, Apple is thinking of using this for downloaded content. (That could be played offline through iTunes, iPod, AppleTV, etc.)
I don't want any of the shows. Only commercials.
Who will launch the first 24/7 commercial channel? All profit all the time! Available for a low monthly subscription fee of only $9.99!!!!
Individual commercials will be available on iTunes for only .99 cents!
Who will launch the first 24/7 commercial channel? All profit all the time! Available for a low monthly subscription fee of only $9.99!!!!
Individual commercials will be available on iTunes for only .99 cents!
I don't want any of the shows. Only commercials.
Who will launch the first 24/7 commercial channel? All profit all the time! Available for a low monthly subscription fee of only $9.99!!!!
Individual commercials will be available on iTunes for only .99 cents!
You mean those shopping channels you get on Cable?
On a portable device playing an ad is not the same is viewing an ad. One cn always turn the iPad upside down Or put a real printed book over the screen and read something for a minute of two. You be really stupid to just sit there holding an iPad in both hands while the ad plays.
One a computer you can multi-task and put the browser over the player.
One a computer you can multi-task and put the browser over the player.
I'm pretty sure a number of users understand how patents work. They just see that Apple is playing a game where they try and patent things that have obviously been in use for ages, or are not really inventions (like undervolting a cpu to save power. That one is particularly insane).
If Apple could patent how we breathe and then sue the entirety of humanity, it appears they would do that as well, given their recent and current track record. There is simply a difference between patenting REAL inventions, and being litigious buffoons.
Why do you assume that anyone that thinks Apple is abusing patent law is an idiot, or needs to read a book? Couldn't they have come to the conclusion because they read books?
As I posted a couple pages back, if you read the patent, you will see it was filed in September 2008. Before asking "how can they patent this when others are already doing it?", you should check to see if they were already doing it before Sep 2008.
Pushing people back to illegal downloading
This is a terrible idea.
Finally Apple is gaining ground in getting people to download movies / tv shows inexpensively online instead of downloading them illegally. This works because the shows are inexpensive AND they are the same as the illegally downloaded content. If they start incorporating ads that can't be skipped, people will just go back to downloading the shows from illegal sources once again.
This is a terrible idea.
Finally Apple is gaining ground in getting people to download movies / tv shows inexpensively online instead of downloading them illegally. This works because the shows are inexpensive AND they are the same as the illegally downloaded content. If they start incorporating ads that can't be skipped, people will just go back to downloading the shows from illegal sources once again.
You need to read the whole patent application, not just the title. All the claims are relevant.
You also need to understand that it's just good business to apply for everything you think might be eligible for a patent. Choosing not to is leaving money on the table at the end of the card game; it's dumb. What's more, systematically refusing to file patent applications could very well be actionable on the part of shareholders. Publicly owned companies are obliged to take all reasonable and proper steps to make money.
Are patents sometimes granted when they shouldn't have been? Sure, doubtless. But either you think that's a big problem, and thus we need to hire more examiners and train them more thoroughly; or you think that's a natural consequence of the fact that people aren't perfect. In neither case is it remotely the fault of the company that applied for and got the patent.
Well … no. Not actually, I don't believe so. That's like saying "Couldn't somebody read a book about the sky and because of it come to the conclusion that the sky is red?" No, you couldn't come to that conclusion … unless the book you read was woefully inaccurate, or you really, really misunderstood it.
Hell, the flaw in your thinking is self-evident in your question. Of course Apple's not abusing patent law. They are complying with patent law. They are participating in the exact same patent system that every other US-based corporation gets to participate in (or opt out of). The law says if you want patent protection, do these things, and that if you subsequently get a patent, you are entitled to do these things. That's not abuse by any sensible definition of the word.
Let's break it down into specifics: Apple invests huge sums of money and lots of time into coming up with neat things. Some of those neat things are really revolutionary; some are just improvements or refinements of existing ideas. The ones that Apple thinks are genuinely new, it tries to patent. Because being awarded a patent gives Apple two decades to try to make as much money as they can using that innovation, which in turn funds the next set of innovations Apple will work on. That's not abusing patent law; that's what patent law is for! That's its sole purpose!
And what of suing to try to collect damages when Apple's patents are infringed? See above: that's why we have patent laws. A patent is a guaranteed limited monopoly in exchange for full and timely public disclosure. If the monopoly guarantee weren't enforceable, then the promise of it wouldn't be an incentive at all. If you infringe on somebody's patent, they can sue you. That's also not abusing the law; that's the purpose of that law.
These are not complex ideas. This isn't deep navel-gazing or existential philosophy. This isn't even stuff one would have to go to law school to learn. This is all stuff you can find in your average high-school civics textbook.
So to answer your question, do I think somebody could crack a book and then consequently embrace some totally incorrect notions of what patents are, how they work and why they exist? I guess I don't, no. Unless their only motivation for opening that book was to doodle in the margins.
