| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/06/2014 01:40:51 PM · #26 |
Granted that Tanguera's link is on the money, which I suspect it is (and which was Penny's first reaction when I showed her the original patent), and Amazon has no intention of going after people with this but is, instead, guarding itself against someone else's potential gaming of the system to go after THEM: granting all of that, it's still a rather startling illustration of how badly the system has broken down. The fact that there DOES exist a whole bunch of companies/individuals whose business model is to patent stuff for the sole purpose of extorting "infringers" is, of course (to borrow Shannon's pun) patently ridiculous.
Message edited by author 2014-05-06 13:41:13. |
|
|
|
05/06/2014 01:50:24 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
While the patent is quite specific about the arrangement patented it ends with "Many variations and modifications may be made to the above-described embodiment(s) without departing substantially from the spirit and principles of the disclosure. All such modifications and variations are intended to be included herein within the scope of this disclosure and protected by the following claims." So just about any backlighting situation may now belong to Amazon. |
The claims, while in total are specific, are much broader when the text above is included and when you consider that ALL claims need not be violated for infringement to occur. |
The "variations and modifications" clause noted above was in reference to the tolerances of specific parameters, which does not change the fact that this is still a very particular setup, and your statement in bold is patently false, pun intended. If the claim did apply to "just about any backlighting situation," or seamless studio setups in general, then the patent would have been thrown out on numerous prior art grounds. |
No. You don't have to directly infringe on all claims to infringe on a patent. If a patent is for: Device 1, an apparatus consisting of Element A, Element B and Element C, infringement doesn't require A, B and C to be present in the infringing apparatus. Device 2 could have A, B and D and if D is found to be "insubstantially different" under the Doctrine of Equivalents it's still infringement.
To be found as "insubstantially different", D must:
Performs substantially the same function
In substantially the same way
To yield substantially the same result
So any part or parts of the lighting setup could be replaced by a different part or parts and still infringe on Amazon's patent.
Subject to expensive legal interpretation by the court, of course.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2014 01:57:03 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
So any part or parts of the lighting setup could be replaced by a different part or parts and still infringe on Amazon's patent. |
Assuming they could prove it, which is highly unlikely. |
|
|
|
05/06/2014 02:01:35 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Spork99:
So any part or parts of the lighting setup could be replaced by a different part or parts and still infringe on Amazon's patent. |
Assuming they could prove it, which is highly unlikely. |
So don't document your lighting and camera setup to help others.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2014 02:03:00 PM · #30 |
|
|
|
05/06/2014 02:30:28 PM · #31 |
|
|
|
05/06/2014 03:02:23 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
PERFECT!!!! |
Darn it â I just realized that Google probably gor their idea for a self-driving car from this eight year old article ... which I wrote (and photographed) ... :-(
BBspot - Chrysler's "Smart Car" Hailed as Latest Step in Man-Machine Symbiosis |
|
|
|
05/06/2014 03:09:03 PM · #33 |
"Chrysler Vice President of Sales Seymour Marks"! Snort! Good one, Paul! |
|
|
|
05/06/2014 03:19:16 PM · #34 |
I see quite a bit of commentary that says essentially "Don't worry because" either "Its Amazon, they are nice guys and won't sue us" or "This is such specific patent that it is nothing like what I do".
Amazon has a nice smile on their box, but they are a profit seeking entity. Remember that they already patented "One click buying" Yes, only at Amazon can you one click to make a purchase. They claimed it was theirs and sued to defend it.
Secondly while the body of the patent is specific and seems to be patenting a specific process, the end notations make it plain that they are really patenting a "look or feel" in that any modification to the specifics in the body can be modified to maintain the look and still be covered by the patent.
(Begin wall of text)In step 303, the one or more rear light sources can be activated. As described above, the one or more rear light sources can comprise a plurality of light sources such that about forty kilowatts of tungsten studio lighting emitting light with a color temperature of approximately 3200K is evenly distributed across a portion of the background 102. In step 305, the front light source can be activated, which illuminates the subject 104 on the elevated platform 101 with about twelve kilowatts of tungsten studio lighting emitting light with a color temperature of approximately 3200K. In other words, a ratio of the rear light sources to the front light source can be approximately 10:3. In step 307, the subject 104 can be positioned on the elevated platform 101 (FIG. 1). As noted above, the subject 104 can include people, products, or any object desired to be photographed or filmed in the studio arrangement 100 to achieve the desired effect. In step 309, images and/or video of the subject can be captured with an image capture device from the image capture position 106 to achieve the desired effect described above.
It should be noted that angles, dimensions, distances, settings, parameters, and other numerical data may or may not be expressed herein in a range format. It is to be understood that the numerical data is presented herein and used for convenience and brevity, and thus, should be interpreted in a flexible manner to include not only the numerical values explicitly recited as the only workable parameters, but also to include all the individual numerical values that can be employed in a studio arrangement 100 to achieve the desired effect discussed herein. To illustrate, a distance expressed as âsix feetâ should be interpreted to distances that are within a reasonable range of such a distance or may vary significantly provided other parameters compensate to achieve desired effects. Additionally, it should also be understood that embodiments of the disclosure can also include equivalent arrangements of elements in a studio that can also achieve a desired effect. For example, while a particular non-limiting example of parameters related to studio lighting may be recited, these parameters can be varied to achieve the desired effect by modulating a distance in combination with the wattage and/or color temperature of the studio lighting to achieve an equivalent result. All such variations are intended to be within the scope of the present disclosure. In embodiments of the disclosure, terms such as âabout,â âapproximately,â and âsubstantiallyâ can include traditional rounding according to significant figures of the numerical value. |
|
|
|
05/06/2014 03:31:11 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Secondly while the body of the patent is specific and seems to be patenting a specific process, the end notations make it plain that they are really patenting a "look or feel" in that any modification to the specifics in the body can be modified to maintain the look and still be covered by the patent. |
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. This is a method (process) patent, and a look and feel claim would be invalidated for countless instances of prior art. |
|
|
|
05/06/2014 03:40:50 PM · #36 |
I suspect that the ultimate motivation for this (and many other) patents is to provide for the continuing full employment of patent attorneys.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"Chrysler Vice President of Sales Seymour Marks"! Snort! Good one, Paul! |
Brian Briggs sometimes edited the submissions, but I just found the original file and that was my line -- yay! :-)
BTW if you want to see (probably) the world's largest listing of "punny occupational names" check out the office roster over at CarTalk.com ...
Message edited by author 2014-05-06 15:50:04. |
|
|
|
05/06/2014 03:56:44 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Secondly while the body of the patent is specific and seems to be patenting a specific process, the end notations make it plain that they are really patenting a "look or feel" in that any modification to the specifics in the body can be modified to maintain the look and still be covered by the patent. |
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. This is a method (process) patent, and a look and feel claim would be invalidated for countless instances of prior art. |
It might get invalidated by the court, but only after a long and expensive legal battle with an opponent possessing nearly limitless resources. You up for it? |
|
|
|
05/06/2014 04:03:17 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
It might get invalidated by the court, but only after a long and expensive legal battle with an opponent possessing nearly limitless resources.... |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I suspect that the ultimate motivation for this (and many other) patents is to provide for the continuing full employment of patent attorneys. |
|
|
|
|
05/06/2014 04:09:18 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
It might get invalidated by the court, but only after a long and expensive legal battle with an opponent possessing nearly limitless resources. You up for it? |
Given the likelihood of a slam dunk case against said cash-rich opponent, I'm sure patent attorneys would line up to volunteer for that one. |
|
|
|
05/06/2014 04:11:00 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. This is a method (process) patent, and a look and feel claim would be invalidated for countless instances of prior art. |
If prior art was going to be a limitation, then no patent could have been allowed. There is nothing new in this patent, no new technology or methodology, just an attempt at standardization across their images and somehow they got a patent on it.
If process was going to be a limitation then last few paragraphs would have been "must" and not "can" in sentences like "the one or more rear light sources can be activated" when the drawing showed 10 of them. If the process was going to be the patent, then it would be specific.
There has been a change if what is considered possible to patent since the Apple V Samsung case where three of the six patents that a jury found Samsung had violated were design patents covering the way an iPhone looks, not how it functions. We are witnessing the first rounds of patents to protect the look you use, to keep competitors from using it, or to keep someone else from claiming it as their own.
âThis case (Apple V Samsung) will surely increase the amount of interest in getting design patent protection,â said Michael Meurer of Boston University School of Law. âAnd thatâs too bad. We were doing fine in our economy with rather weak design patent protection.â
Most patents cover a method for doing something useful with machinery, software or some more abstract process. Design patents, on the other hand, cover completely non-functional features that make a product distinctive, like the rounded corners on the iPhone. A creation of Congress, they date back to the 1800s. But patent lawyers tended to neglect design patents until recently because it seemed to make more sense to protect unique designs with trademark or copyright law, both of which are cheaper and provide longer-lasting protection. However these days it is much easier to get a patent on something (even a way to swing on a swing is patentable) while trademark and copyright are still fairly limited in what can be calimed and how you can sue to recover infringement.
Message edited by Bear_Music - parsed the quote. |
|
|
|
05/06/2014 04:28:39 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
If prior art was going to be a limitation, then no patent could have been allowed. There is nothing new in this patent, no new technology or methodology, just an attempt at standardization across their images and somehow they got a patent on it. |
The very narrow set of specified parameters is patentable as a non-obvious methodology, although if someone were to find a very similar published setup before the filing date the patent would be invalidated. It's worth noting that the references outside the claim section are NOT legally protected. For infringement you would have to meet the overwhelmingly unlikely combined conditions spelled out in sections 7-10... and Amazon would have to prove it.
Message edited by author 2014-05-06 16:35:53. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/24/2025 10:38:52 PM EDT.
