SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
janrinok
on Thursday May 08 2014, @04:45PM
from the I-must-change-to-a-black-background dept.
from the I-must-change-to-a-black-background dept.
Tim Cushing over at Techdirt is reporting that Amazon has received a patent for photographing against a white background:
The US Patent and Trademark Office is frequently maligned for its baffling/terrible decisions... and rightfully so. Because this is exactly the sort of thing for which the USPTO should be maligned. Udi Tirosh at DIY Photography has uncovered a recently granted patent for the previously-unheard of process of photographing things/people against a white backdrop... to of all companies, Amazon.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Amazon Patents Photos Against White Backgrounds
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 40 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
If life gives you lemons, make lemonade.
(Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Thursday May 08 2014, @05:56PM
Actually if you read the description in TFA, or, follow the link to the actual patents, something as simple as changing the F stop, or ISO, gets you around the patent. Change the light source, color temperature, wattage, and you are good to go. The patent is SO SPECIFIC, that you WILL have trouble finding prior art. Further it is SO SPECIFIC that Amazon wouldn't be able to find any infringers.
Amazon's aim was to avoid post-processing, such that no photo retouch was necessary, and they could put these images directly on line. Advertisers getting in trouble for re-touching photos is a common enough occurrence that its easy to see that any method that avoids re-touching saves time, money, and potential legal fees.
That said, its pretty easy to see that this patent was pretty much designed to be easy to get around. Remember you have to violate each claim of a patent to be in violation. Sometimes, you have to violate each WORD in a claim [bpmlegal.com]. This makes it easy to get around. (Note that this is more of a "process" patent (a way of doing something) than it is an invention.
I suspect it is designed to protect a service Amazon offers to the manufacturers of products Amazon sells. All Amazon needs to do is mandate that anything sold on their site be photographed exactly this way so that it is ready for instant upload to their database. Oh, and, no, you can't do this yourself because Amazon owns the patent, so the manufacturers will have to pay Amazon for the photo shoot.
Its a STUPID patent, but not a harmful one. This patent is only useful to Amazon, to protect a service, and wouldn't hinder anyone else because its so easy go get around.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Thursday May 08 2014, @06:27PM
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday May 08 2014, @06:29PM
Second to last paragraph in my post.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 09 2014, @02:47PM
In order to keep someone else from patenting it and then suing you, of course.
I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Saturday May 10 2014, @11:26AM
(Score: 5, Interesting) by hankwang on Thursday May 08 2014, @09:02PM
"Remember you have to violate each claim of a patent to be in violation. Sometimes, you have to violate each WORD in a claim"
No, no, no. You have to do or build something that is covered by only one independent claim to be in violation. The dependent claims (the ones that refer back to earlier claims) are only there as an insurance against prior art.
Something is covered by a claim if each element in the claim applies. In this case: at least 5 light sources at specific locations, an elevated reflective platform, and specific camera settings. Indeed easy to.circumvent.
Avantslash: SoylentNews for mobile [avantslash.org]
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday May 08 2014, @10:02PM
I'm not prepared to argue this point, IANAL.
I was relying on the linked article by a law firm specializing in Patent law where it mentioned the [bpmlegal.com]
This is also backed up by other Patent Attorneys [ocpatentlawyer.com]
So, you see, I don't have a law degree, but if YOU DO, your argument is with these lawyers, not me.
Pertaining to the patent under discussion [uspto.gov]:
Claim 1 of the patent (an independent claim) is so specific that anyone could easily omit one light, use a different lens focal length, etc., and avoid infringement. I have to believe it was intentionally written that way, because 1) anything broader would not have been patentable, and 2) they are only trying to patent their service, not studio photography in general.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Angry Jesus on Thursday May 08 2014, @11:32PM
>> You have to do or build something that is covered by only one independent claim to be in violation.
>
> in order to infringe, a product must contain every single element in at least one claim of the patent
There is no contradiction between these two statements.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday May 08 2014, @11:41PM
Agreed.
Hankwang was correcting my wording from my first post, where I stated it incorrectly.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.