wtf? YAPSIFUT (Yet another patent system is...

[Fayd]

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...ALL&S1=08676045&OS=PN/08676045&RS=PN/08676045

Amazon patented taking pictures a certain way with a white background. Seriously?? Now, what's to stop patent trolls from patenting a larger number of "types" of photography, with the aim of later suing anyone using images of their products for copyright infringement? So, flash from the front, flash from the back, white surface, and camera 9 feet away = patent violation.

seems to me there's a whole bunch of patent clerks who aren't doing their job. they are supposed to be our defense against this bullshit.

 

[Rakehellion]

First - Here are the three independent claims of the patent you cited -

People on the internet have very passionate opinions about things they don't understand.


I've asked this question a few times but haven't received a response: If not this, then what should be patentable?

 

[Rakehellion]

Upon what data are you basing this? The 0.00000001% of patents that make the news?

Pretty much.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Patents are so retarded. IP laws are basically censorship. The idea behind them may be good but they are open to too much abuse and in the end hinders on everyone but megacorporations.

If anything, only big ideas should be patentable, and it should only last a few years then anyone else should be allowed to use the concept. Besides, just because one company came up with something does not mean another company wont have to work hard to do the same thing. Having more than 1 of something is a good thing, it's called competition. It should also not be possible to patent something that is so trivial or already in use. The whole system needs a huge overhaul.

The issue with a lot of patents is that some are so trivial that is would be very easy to accidentally violate them. not to mention it's impossible to even think of every possible thing to patent when silly little things like that are patentable. So if I own a company that makes a certain product, a company that wants to shut me down just has to patent trivial little things like that which I happen to be doing and never even thought of patenting (or even have money to). Patents only protect megacorps.

 

[_Rick_]

People on the internet have very passionate opinions about things they don't understand.


I've asked this question a few times but haven't received a response: If not this, then what should be patentable?

I think the issue with this specific patent, is the potential lack of novelty.
The general method has most likely been used previously, in that exact same configuration, with that exact same purpose.

But for the same reason, that this claim is not really detectable, similarly prior art is going to be hard to prove, as few people document in such detail their white-box methodology in a way that is sufficiently date-able to be of relevance for a prior art claim.

 

[Red Squirrel]

I think the issue with this specific patent, is the potential lack of novelty.
The general method has most likely been used previously, in that exact same configuration, with that exact same purpose.

But for the same reason, that this claim is not really detectable, similarly prior art is going to be hard to prove, as few people document in such detail their white-box methodology in a way that is sufficiently date-able to be of relevance for a prior art claim.

Yeah the danger here is that they can claim that a picture you took infringed, you can't really prove how you set up your camera (and normally one would not even think of needing to prove that) so if someone takes pictures and is not aware of this patent and happens to use a similar configuration they could get sued out of business. Pretty retarded. It seems these days a lot of these patents are simply to act as traps, in hope someone accidentally infringes on it so they can be sued for millions.

 

[_Rick_]

Well, no, they cannot, at least not realistically, and if they do, they are extremely likely to open themselves up to claims of documented prior art, fulfilling the exact "provable" claim, that they've used to attack whoever took the supposedly infringing picture.

 

[Markbnj]

Upon what data are you basing this? The 0.00000001% of patents that make the news?

Because we shouldn't have opinions based on what we see. What we should do is let the professionals evaluate and govern the system. Of course, they're all making money off of it, so there is something of a conflict there.

I've co-written three patent apps, two have been granted, and I have no idea what the hell should or should not be patented, until I see something that I think should not be patented. There have been a lot of those things over the last twenty years, including stupid bullshit like trying to patent the concept of displaying a window on a screen, or specific applications of long-understood mathematical principles in source code. So you'll have to forgive the average non-professional who observes the patent system and thinks it's fucked, because a lot of the time it seems fucked. I'm sure the professionals can explain to me why it isn't, just as my tort lawyer friends can all mount a passionate defense of the stupidest lawsuit you ever heard of.

 

[DrPizza]

Sho-Nuff - I'm far from one of those anti-patent people. And, yes, I recognize your expertise in regarding patents.

However, if you read through #1, and actually try to interpret the jargon used, it says, "A white wall behind the thing you're taking a picture of. A camera on a tripod in front of the object. The white background is lit by lights. The wall is straight up and down (like 99.9999% of background walls). The camera has a very typical lens and f-stop for that lens and amount of white balance. The object you're taking a picture of is on a stand (not the floor). The surface of the stand is white.

As far as the lighting for optimal imaging - I'm not a product photographer. But I DO do a lot of theater lighting for school musicals (both for our school, and for county-wide musicals). The lighting is exactly what's done in theater. There's nothing new there - if you don't want shadows on the backdrop, you light the backdrop from behind the actors. Those lights don't shine on the actors directly, though the brightness (reflection) from the backdrop lights the actors from behind, while other lights light them from the front.

There's nothing novel about this at all, except jargon to describe the obvious. OMG, the object is on a platform that's between the camera and the backdrop? Who would have ever thunk of that!

 

[Tiamat]

seems to me there's a whole bunch of patent clerks who aren't doing their job. they are supposed to be our defense against this bullshit.

Firstly, they are patent examiners. Secondly, their job is to reduce the amount of possible patent litigation. Instead of 8+million litigated patents, there are far less. Thirdly, they are human beings that are charged to find prior art references in the time allotted. Some examiners are better than others. In general, a patent examiner has an average of 10-20 hours total for an entire prosecution of a single application to come up with prior art references. For most applications throughout history, 98-99%, this is good enough and no problems legally exist, the patent never goes to litigation. For a very tiny minority,1-2%, a more thorough search is required under litigation proceedings by attorneys which involve vastly more resources than utilized during prosecution. So 98-99% success rate - I would say that patent examiners and their counterpart patent prosecution attorneys are doing quite well in protecting the interests of the people.

In most other professional environments, a 99% success rate would be considered excellent. Why should the patent office and the attorneys for the applicants be held so negatively for what amounts to an expected or better than expected error rate? Will mistakes happen and stupid stuff issue? Yes. That is to be expected because patent prosecution is only a part of the patent legal system and only a relatively small amount of resources are utilized. Just because litigation costs so much is no fault of patent prosecution. When suing someone for infringement, huge amounts of manhours are utilized to find any and all prior art and other supoorting documents anywhere and everywhere in all langauges searchable and unsearchable in a "whatever it takes" effort. "Huge amounts of manhours" costs millions of US$. Patent prosecution costs only thousands to tens of thousands of dollars depending on attorney fees.

Can you patent anything under the sun? No.
Can a bad patent slip through prosecution due to limited resources? Yes, but its not very likely.

 

[twinrider1]

I wonder what product/service they're working on that is driving the need for this patent.

 

[Jeff7]

I wonder what product/service they're working on that is driving the need for this patent.

It was a-thing-that-someone-in-the-company-did. Might as well patent it, just in case you can cash in on it later.
Or so that no one else can do the same thing, and try to block you from doing it.

 

[Red Squirrel]

They may as well cover all their bases and patent each ISO/aperture/shutter speed combination too along with each possible distance. Heck, just patent photography as a whole, I don't think anyone has really even considered patenting that. "The concept of putting what you see into a digital image using an apparatus designed for the purpose". Then they can sue everyone that uses a camera. :awe:

 

[Rakehellion]

I think the issue with this specific patent, is the potential lack of novelty.
The general method has most likely been used previously, in that exact same configuration, with that exact same purpose.

But for the same reason, that this claim is not really detectable, similarly prior art is going to be hard to prove, as few people document in such detail their white-box methodology in a way that is sufficiently date-able to be of relevance for a prior art claim.

That doesn't answer my question at all.

 

[SP33Demon]

I'm going to patent the duckface and make millions. Cheeks have to be contorted at a 39 degree angle with lips pursed. Get ready for the lawsuits.

 

[William Gaatjes]

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...ALL&S1=08676045&OS=PN/08676045&RS=PN/08676045

Amazon patented taking pictures a certain way with a white background. Seriously?? Now, what's to stop patent trolls from patenting a larger number of "types" of photography, with the aim of later suing anyone using images of their products for copyright infringement? So, flash from the front, flash from the back, white surface, and camera 9 feet away = patent violation.

The company i work for bought pictures for the company website at least a decade ago from some pictures company and used them of course.
Last year, there was an US based internet company that actively seeks out these pictures from websites and compares them with their own pictures database. The short story is that they send a letter asking that we must pay for the pictures or there will be legal action. But how to proof we purchased them legally all those years ago ? We could not. It was solved eventually by making use of different pictures for a new fresh website, discarding the old pictures.

 

[TallBill]

People on the internet have very passionate opinions about things they don't understand.


I've asked this question a few times but haven't received a response: If not this, then what should be patentable?

Inventions which are not obvious to experts from within a similar field. We've been doing this wrong for a hundred years or more.

31 patents were on the books in regards to the incandescent light bulb when Thomas Edison applied for his first. Roughly a decade later because of what turned out to be lucky wording and lots of legal battles Edison "won" the patent war and another decade later controlled 97% of the lighting industry.

 

[Red Squirrel]

If there was no patents we would be so much more advanced, as patents are nothing but an artificial limitation to advancement and improvement. Say I have the knowledge, money, and ability to create something, I should be able to do it no matter what, and nobody should be able to stop me because of some patent. IP laws are getting stupider and stupider and are nothing but a form of censorship. People will say "but nobody will be motivated to invent" well if they're inventing just for the sake of monopolizing on something, they're doing it for the wrong reasons. Let people who want to invent for the sake of inventing do it. If two people come up with the same thing then they should both be allowed to make that product.

 

[TallBill]

If there was no patents we would be so much more advanced, as patents are nothing but an artificial limitation to advancement and improvement. Say I have the knowledge, money, and ability to create something, I should be able to do it no matter what, and nobody should be able to stop me because of some patent. IP laws are getting stupider and stupider and are nothing but a form of censorship. People will say "but nobody will be motivated to invent" well if they're inventing just for the sake of monopolizing on something, they're doing it for the wrong reasons. Let people who want to invent for the sake of inventing do it. If two people come up with the same thing then they should both be allowed to make that product.

About 90 percent of all major inventions in modern history had been worked on by multiple people or teams.

 

[cubby1223]

If there was no patents we would be so much more advanced, as patents are nothing but an artificial limitation to advancement and improvement. Say I have the knowledge, money, and ability to create something, I should be able to do it no matter what, and nobody should be able to stop me because of some patent. IP laws are getting stupider and stupider and are nothing but a form of censorship. People will say "but nobody will be motivated to invent" well if they're inventing just for the sake of monopolizing on something, they're doing it for the wrong reasons. Let people who want to invent for the sake of inventing do it. If two people come up with the same thing then they should both be allowed to make that product.

Change that to "nobody will be able to afford inventing".

If we had no patents we would be less advanced. The good patents advance the world faster than the abused patents hold it back.

Inventing a product can take 10's of thousands, sometimes 100's of thousands of dollars to see through to the finished product, and often demand the collaboration of several different entities, from design to manufacturing to sales & support. Patents often are the only way an individual has any shot of recovering his out-of-pocket expenses in creating a new product. If you have no income you cannot continue to invent.

And tack on most inventors fail far more often than they succeed, it only increases the need to recover cash at the end.

The world does not work on the wishes of rainbows and unicorns. The world works on cash.

 

[Anarchist420]

Change that to "nobody will be able to afford inventing". If we had no patents we would be less advanced. The good patents advance the world faster than the abused patents hold it back. Inventing a product can take 10's of thousands, sometimes 100's of thousands of dollars to see through to the finished product, and often demand the collaboration of several different entities, from design to manufacturing to sales & support. Patents often are the only way an individual has any shot of recovering his out-of-pocket expenses in creating a new product. If you have no income you cannot continue to invent. And tack on most inventors fail far more often than they succeed, it only increases the need to recover cash at the end. The world does not work on the wishes of rainbows and unicorns. The world works on cash.

the first american was one of the smartest people ever and he was against patenting his own inventions.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Change that to "nobody will be able to afford inventing".

If we had no patents we would be less advanced. The good patents advance the world faster than the abused patents hold it back.

Inventing a product can take 10's of thousands, sometimes 100's of thousands of dollars to see through to the finished product, and often demand the collaboration of several different entities, from design to manufacturing to sales & support. Patents often are the only way an individual has any shot of recovering his out-of-pocket expenses in creating a new product. If you have no income you cannot continue to invent.

And tack on most inventors fail far more often than they succeed, it only increases the need to recover cash at the end.

The world does not work on the wishes of rainbows and unicorns. The world works on cash.

Not all inventions take that kind of money. Especially when it comes to silly little things like specific camera angles or shapes, or software (which has zero cost if it's a sole operation as a hobby). And if a certain thing DOES take that much money, then if someone else can come up with that money, knowledge and overall resources then why the hell should they not too be allowed to compete? They worked just as hard to get there. It's one thing to come up with an idea - we've all done it as kids, like going into space, but it's a totally different thing to execute it. If two entities have the capability of executing something then they should both be allowed to, one should not have monopoly over it.

Really the only place I can see patents make sense is military, because you don't want other countries/entities having the same tech as you. But lot of that stuff is usually top secret anyway.

I just find these artificial limitations we set on ourselves are retarded. There's just no reason for it if we want to continue to advance. In fact money alone is a huge artificial limitation. We arn't doing more space missions and other cool stuff because we don't have the tech, but because we don't have the money.

Don't get me started with drug patents. I can already see it happen in the future, a huge outbreak of something comes up, everyone is trying to work on a cure, some megacorp finds it, but patents it, and makes it really expensive, then nobody else is allowed to do it. People die.

 

[cubby1223]

Not all inventions take that kind of money. Especially when it comes to silly little things like specific camera angles or shapes, or software (which has zero cost if it's a sole operation as a hobby). And if a certain thing DOES take that much money, then if someone else can come up with that money, knowledge and overall resources then why the hell should they not too be allowed to compete? They worked just as hard to get there. It's one thing to come up with an idea - we've all done it as kids, like going into space, but it's a totally different thing to execute it. If two entities have the capability of executing something then they should both be allowed to, one should not have monopoly over it.

Really the only place I can see patents make sense is military, because you don't want other countries/entities having the same tech as you. But lot of that stuff is usually top secret anyway.

I just find these artificial limitations we set on ourselves are retarded. There's just no reason for it if we want to continue to advance. In fact money alone is a huge artificial limitation. We arn't doing more space missions and other cool stuff because we don't have the tech, but because we don't have the money.

Don't get me started with drug patents. I can already see it happen in the future, a huge outbreak of something comes up, everyone is trying to work on a cure, some megacorp finds it, but patents it, and makes it really expensive, then nobody else is allowed to do it. People die.

You're just making things up now because you personally "feel" it is right.

Don't.

 

[Jeff7]

Not all inventions take that kind of money. Especially when it comes to silly little things like specific camera angles or shapes, or software (which has zero cost if it's a sole operation as a hobby). And if a certain thing DOES take that much money, then if someone else can come up with that money, knowledge and overall resources then why the hell should they not too be allowed to compete? They worked just as hard to get there. It's one thing to come up with an idea - we've all done it as kids, like going into space, but it's a totally different thing to execute it. If two entities have the capability of executing something then they should both be allowed to, one should not have monopoly over it.

Except someone else doesn't have to come up with the money and resources for R&D if someone else has done it already.
Party A does the expensive R&D and goes to market.
Party B copies the idea and goes to market, but they don't have to recoup the R&D costs, so they can sell it cheaper.

Really the only place I can see patents make sense is military, because you don't want other countries/entities having the same tech as you. But lot of that stuff is usually top secret anyway.

Though if an unfriendly country's government wants to kill you, I doubt they'll let patent law stand in the way of stealing technology.

I just find these artificial limitations we set on ourselves are retarded. There's just no reason for it if we want to continue to advance. In fact money alone is a huge artificial limitation. We aren't doing more space missions and other cool stuff because we don't have the tech, but because we don't have the money.

Don't get me started with drug patents. I can already see it happen in the future, a huge outbreak of something comes up, everyone is trying to work on a cure, some megacorp finds it, but patents it, and makes it really expensive, then nobody else is allowed to do it. People die.

Unfortunately our species is inherently a bunch of selfish assholes. It's what evolution (yes, evolution, head out of the sand) has yielded. Selfish life forms on this planet survive, and nature doesn't give a damn about being nice.
Animals kill other things for food, or even for fun.
I just saw something about the Galapagos. One of the birds there will lay two eggs. One hatches a few days before the other one. The firstborn shoves the younger one out of the nest. The mother does nothing to help it, and it dies of exposure or predation.
Nature doesn't give a damn about individual survival, or being nice, and we've unfortunately inherited those behaviors. Our recorded history is one of constant violence and cruelty. "Torture" is a concept that everyone is familiar with, as is "murder." That's what we are. And we're also selfish. Survival is paramount, and those instincts still persist even when survival is not threatened.

A competitive marketplace, including a patent system, is a way to handle these inherent behaviors. As opposed to collaborative efforts, competition is quite terribly inefficient, but it's something that works well for our species, because it plays to our competitive nature. Patents can help to encourage people to compete, by ensuring that someone who puts forth the effort of making something new will have a shot at a financial reward.
Yes, like any systems we've made thus far, people adapt to it, and corrupt it. I think that that is the problem that is faced now. Large companies are buying out other companies, not to add to their own production capacity or to improve their internal efficiency, but simply to get their patents, especially when they do this as a way of throwing money at an obstacle. (Though perhaps in that case, the patent holders did get their financial reward.:hmm Or you have companies that subsist largely on being patent trolls.

 

[_Rick_]

That doesn't answer my question at all.

Well, I understood your question, as "if not this, then what should be patentable".

I replied pointing out the lack of novelty in this patent.
Otherwise it fulfills the rules (previously laid out in this thread) on what makes a patent.
By pointing out what makes it not a good patent, I tried to point out why this particular patent is an exception to what should be usually patented.

I.E. novel, non-obvious, detectable, precisely laid out and reproducible devices or solutions, that are well-referenced within an existing state of the art.