Just ask Mark Cuban, whose Magnolia Pictures was recently sued by a company called Red Pine Point for allegedly infringing a patent covering the delivery of feature length movies to mobile cellular devices.
Saturday, February 15, 2014
5 Patents Aimed at the Future of Entertainment
Just ask Mark Cuban, whose Magnolia Pictures was recently sued by a company called Red Pine Point for allegedly infringing a patent covering the delivery of feature length movies to mobile cellular devices.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
So I guess these patents were supposed to be examples of the "entrepreneurship of the inventor" and while some of them were definitely new ideas, they didn't really seem all that great. I'm not really sure what to make of the "amusement pod" and I know the idea of integrated headphones already exists. The audience participation patent also seems ridiculous. Instead of doing the wave the audience all have noisemakers and somehow make music? That seems like a disaster waiting to happen. The last patent about distracting from streaming video flaws also sounds totally counterintuitive. Why would making worse flaws to distract from minor ones help? I'm honestly not expecting to see any of these patents hit the market any time soon.
I don't really see how these particular patents could directly help the entertainment industry, but I guess, since almost everything in theatre is adapted and not made for theatre, it wouldn't be far fetched for a designer or director to want a specific look or feel, and all of the sudden you might be looking into ways to make a man-cave-esque set, and that guys invention could come in handy. I think that overall it is very hard to assign what could and couldn't be useful for theatre, since like I said, very little of what we use in theatre was purpose built!
Ive always been conflicted about the patent system in the US because on one hand, it does help to protect people from having their ideas stolen especially by larger corporations and it gives inventors an actual tangible thing that they can sell to investors as opposed to just an idea, but on the other side, a lot of the rules and regulations and patents themselves all seem kind of ridiculous. Especially in the entertainment industry, besides the technology itself, can you patent a certain way of doing a show? or is that fair use? I also am confused by this articles title, because the patents it discusses dont really seem to be that involved with the entertainment industry. They seem to all be more like consumer products.
I'm never exactly sure what to think when I read about the patent system. On one hand, it is great. It gives credit to those who work hard to solve a problem or invent something new. I think it's important that people's individual efforts and ideas are valued and credited. Not only does it ensure the inventor will benefit economically, but it pushes others to broaden and invent new things to be patented instead of recreating the same product over and over. However, on the other hand patents can sometimes become so specific and absurd that it limits creativity. Great inventions are sometimes born simply by expanding upon other people's ideas.
I don't quite understand the title of the article. Unless these patents are new, I have already seen some form of every one of these patents. And none of them are new. The US Patent system is a great way for protecting the innovators and inventors and make sure they receive credit. One the other hand, when companies exist solely to claim money/license fees for the use a patent, that just seems dumb. That was not why patents were created and really shouldn't be how they are used. The patent system should not be so convoluted that you need to hire a patent lawyer to do anything with them.
Post a Comment