21 ms·

A patent lawsuit against GNOME

604 points by globuous 7y ago

messe 7y ago
Abstract of the patent in question: "A system and method for distributing at least one digital photographic image is presented, the system and method comprising at least one capturing device and at least one receiving device disposed in a communicative relation with one another via at least one wireless network. In particular, the capturing device is structured to capture the at least one digital photographic image via, for example, a capture assembly, whereas the receiving device is cooperatively structured to receive the digital photographic image via, for example, the at least one wireless network. In addition, the capturing device(s) and receiving device(s) may be disposed in a selectively paired relationship via one or more common pre-defined pairing criteria. Further, the at least one digital photographic image may be filtered via at least one pre-defined transfer criteria disposed on the capturing device and/or receiving device."
- lazyguy2 7y ago
  What a bunch of assholes. Federal government really needs to stop enabling these people.
  - giancarlostoro 7y ago
    These kind of claims should yield further investigations into the rest of the patents of the companies that have too many patents. Especially if their only source of income is patents. If found that they hold invalid patents to things that have prior "art" or implementations, those specific patents should be revoked.
    - lazyguy2 7y ago
      At the very least the company must show damages to sales or something like that. The whole patent system in general is a massive drag on innovation and the economy. Sure it's supposed to do the opposite, but that the difference between theory and practice. The way it is now it's harms technological progress with this sort of nonsense.
      - giancarlostoro 7y ago
        Whats worse yet is does GNOME even generate any revenue from Shotwell? If not... this is such a low blow.
        CameronNemo 7y ago
        From what I remember, they only picked it up once the Yorba Foundation folded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorba_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorba_Foundation
    - darksaints 7y ago
      I wish there was an organization of non-patent holders (to reduce risks of retaliation) that does nothing but work to find prior art in patent troll portfolios, invalidating them and destroying their business. There are so many obviously shady patents that these trolls hold onto, it should be pretty easy to get the low hanging fruit.
      - giancarlostoro 7y ago
        A non-profit that sues patent trolls for money to fund itself. A reverse troll for patent trolls.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        erik_seaberg 7y ago
        The fee is something like $16K to start either a post-grant or inter partes review, and even if you win you don't get that money back. There's no reward other than being in a more sane industry.
  - egdod 7y ago
    The abstract of a patent means almost nothing.
  - lone_haxx0r 7y ago
    They're just playing by the rules of the game. If there are any assholes in this situation, they're the people who set up the patent system and the ones thay defend its existence.
  - KibbutzDalia 7y ago
    Why do you want to tear up the U.S. constitution?
    - lazyguy2 7y ago
      I want to eliminate the stupid parts. Commerce clause can go, too.
- crooked-v 7y ago
  But that's just having a wifi webcam, isn't it? How in the world is that novel enough to get a patent?
  - briffle 7y ago
    Pretty sure I had a photographer friend with a CFCard with built-in wifi before 2008 when this patent was filed.
    - imglorp 7y ago
      Something changed recently, making the US "first to file". Did that totally eliminate the concept of prior art? I mean, if you're looking for that, the Viking lander in 1976 did the same thing: transmit a digital image from the capture device, filter and save it at the other end. Even Mariner 4, in 1964 might fit those criteria. https://www.uspto.gov/patent/first-inventor-file-fitf-resources https://www.uspto.gov/patent/first-inventor-file-fitf-resour...
      - toast0 7y ago
        > Something changed recently, making the US "first to file". Did that totally eliminate the concept of prior art? No, it just removes the question of when an invention happened. Under first to invent, if two similar patents are filed, there is some effort required to determine which was invented first, and gets priority. Under first to file, it's much simpler to determine. Prior art is still a reason to deny a patent, and patent examiners are still likely to miss it.
        bscphil 7y ago
        Then what exactly does first to file even mean? If you and I both invent something, but I invent it a month after you do and file for a patent first, would it be granted since I'm the first to file, or could you invalidate the claim by showing that there was prior art - specifically, your prior invention of the same thing?
- IshKebab 7y ago
  The abstract is irrelevant. It's the claims that matter, especially the top level claims (1 and 4). In this patent they are both about "an image-capturing mobile device", which Shotwell pretty clearly isn't. They stand zero chance of winning this.
- KibbutzDalia 7y ago
  Read the claims. Not the abstract.
GenghisSean 7y ago
This looks like a patent troll. The functionality they have patented is quite basic for a modern photo program.
- arathore 7y ago
  The inventor has about 134 patents [1] and many of which seem (to me) very generic. I am not very familiar with patent jargon so I can't definitively say if those patents have enough substance to them. Maybe someone with experience could expand on this? [1] https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Leigh+M.+Rothschild&sort=new https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Leigh+M.+Rothschild&sor...
  - anticensor 7y ago
    Patent applications are usually not written by inventors themselves. Hence, they have vague and/or prolonged language to cover the invention more.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
adamnemecek 7y ago
"Rothschild Patent Imaging LLC" Best company name.
- misterdoubt 7y ago
  At least there's self-awareness here.
looperhacks 7y ago
This patent went active today. The patent seems very basic. This looks like a patent troll, doesn't it? The described idea wasn't really novel when they applied for the patent
- hiccuphippo 7y ago
  I'm sure Nasa has been wirelessly sending images from mobile devices for decades.
- barbegal 7y ago
  The patent didn't go active today (Google Patents just shows it is currently active today) and has already been used in other lawsuits that were dismissed by a court https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A16-cv-01382 https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern...
  - lwf 7y ago
    For clarity, though, this case was dismissed without prejudice on the basis of an improper venue. The patent still looks bogus, but don't draw any premature conclusions from the above-cited case.
Signez 7y ago
They are patent-trolling a non-profit. facepalm
- wyldfire 7y ago
  The fact that they're a nonprofit makes them a great target.
  - wtfrmyinitials 7y ago
    Why? There isn't much for a troll to plunder
    - wyldfire 7y ago
      The business of patent trolls is to find targets too small to have counsel on staff. The cost of sending a letter is negligible so even very "small" amounts (a few thousand USD) is a huge win. Non-profits can easily make their benefit calculation to send off a few thousand and/or hire counsel just to cover a cheap settlement. Much less expensive than the cost of litigation.
leafo 7y ago
Serial patent troll: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/garmin-sued-in-east-texas-over-patents-on-an-internet-drink-mixer-seeks-legal-fees/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/garmin-sued-in-e...
lol768 7y ago
GNOME should consider a call for prior art, similar to Cloudflare's Project Jengo. It would be a concrete way to crowdsource help to fight back against what looks like a patent troll.
Benjamin_Dobell 7y ago
Wow, going after GNOME is such an incredibly stupid thing for a patent troll to do. Once EFF get involved they can kiss their patent good-bye.
- locusofself 7y ago
  I have no idea, but I would hope so..
- sounds 7y ago
  Part of the stupidity of filing a lawsuit against GNOME is that the awards are either statutory damages (pay what you should have paid before) or punitive damages (pay a higher price because you are willfully violating the patent). If the court invalidates the patent, which is likely, GNOME and other free software projects can use that as a precedent in the future, which makes it harder for trolls to operate. The smart troll picks "soft targets" who will just roll over and pay. If the court awards statutory damages, GNOME made no money because they sold no software, so it's possible the statutory damages ends up being less than the cost to litigate. The smart troll does not pick "zero-value targets" like GNOME. If the court awards punitive damages, GNOME has very little revenue and may not be able to pay all the damages. The smart troll does not pick "poor targets" like GNOME. This feels like a poorly-paid paralegal just shotgunned a bunch of suits and really, really screwed up.
  - Ahwleung 7y ago
    If they (somehow) won or GNOME foundation settled, could they use that precedent to go after juicier targets? Maybe their strategy was to pick a "poor target" to set that precedent? Disclaimer: I don't know anything in this space.
    - sounds 7y ago
      I am not a lawyer. I am not GNOME's lawyer. If they get a judgment against GNOME for violating this patent, it would make a lot of news and likely be appealed. Getting to a final precedent in favor of patent infringement would take years, sinking lots of lawyer dollars into the effort, and the whole process is fraught with an enormous amount of risk. I just don't see them having that kind of long play in their playbook. But I don't know anyone involved... It could be they are acting stupid but are really smart?
thaumaturgy 7y ago
Rothschild Patent Imaging appears to be the company holding the rights to a number of dubious patents filed by Leigh M. Rothschild, who appears to have a well-deserved reputation as a patent troll [1][2]. I hope Gnome is able to take a Newegg approach here and kill the patent. [1]: http://www.unhappyfranchisee.com/qr-code-patent-troll-sues-dickeys-barbecue/ http://www.unhappyfranchisee.com/qr-code-patent-troll-sues-d... [2]: "A Florida inventor named Leigh M. Rothschild is the largest single NPE based on the number of defendants who have been added to patent lawsuits he filed, according to the the report." https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2016/0106/Despite-crackdown-from-courts-patent-suits-still-battered-tech-companies-in-2015 https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2016/0106/Despite-crack...
- mcherm 7y ago
  > I hope Gnome is able to take a Newegg approach here and kill the patent. How do you propose paying for that? It is fantastically expensive.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - tombert 7y ago
    If anyone from the Gnome team is listening, if you guys started a GoFundMe or something to help with legal fees to challenge this, I would throw twenty bucks your way. I'd be happy if someone held me to that.
    - hipsterstal1n 7y ago
      It cost Newegg $60,000 to fight their patent troll. Gnome team is going to need a lot more then $20.
      - hondadriver 7y ago
        He will not be the only one throwing $20...
cjhanks 7y ago
He started BarPoint.com which at one point lost $3.53 mil on $23,185 revenue [1]. What a joke. [1] https://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2002/08/12/daily90.html https://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2002/08/12/...
synthmeat 7y ago
https://www.gnome.org/support-gnome/donate/ https://www.gnome.org/support-gnome/donate/ Let's use up the news momentum to give GNOME (more) resources to bury these fuckers.
- twobat 7y ago
  I always thought of Gnome as a Redhat product.
  - madrix999 7y ago
    Isn't KDE maintained by RedHat? There was news a while back about them killing off KDE in the near future
    - beojan 7y ago
      No. They just aren't packaging KDE for RHEL.
    - zaat 7y ago
      You are confusing KDE with X11, which is maintained by Red Hat and was announced as going into maintenance mode in favor of Wayland.
      - Arnavion 7y ago
        They weren't confusing it with X, though they were misremembering RH's role - https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/7/html-single/7.6_release_notes/index#idm139718396587376 https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterp...
  - dylan-m 7y ago
    Nope! Current GNOME foundation board has one RedHat employee, out of six people. RedHat contributes a lot to the project, because they are one of few companies making a desktop distro with serious resources behind it. (That, and RedHat understands open source enough that they see collaborating upstream as a net benefit). But GNOME is its own thing, and always has been, built by contributions from all sorts of places.
LameRubberDucky 7y ago
After reading through the patent and the suit, their comparison to Shotwell is ridiculous. In the patent, they even describe how Shotwell and other similar photo gallery programs that can share to social medial work and further go on to explain how their patent is different from these. The patent essentially is for a group of wireless devices to be linked together at say a wedding, when one person takes a picture, the picture is transmitted wirelessly and automatically to the paired devices, digital cameras, smartphones, computers, etc. So, everyone's smartphones or digital cameras pair together and anyone that takes a photo has that photo distributed to the other devices. How is that anything like Shotwell?
- dylan-m 7y ago
  Someone pointed out that the patent became active _today_. I wonder if they filed other lawsuits based on this patent as well? Would make sense that they target a bunch of small software developers who can't defend themselves in hopes of some easy settlements, but they rather miscalculated on GNOME.
linuxftw 7y ago
An interesting thing about patents in the US is that this company could also sue any organization using the infringing software (eg, a Linux distro that uses GNOME, and it's customers). Red Hat offers to fight and protect end-users of their software that might get caught up in a patent fight like this one: https://www.redhat.com/en/about/open-source-assurance-faq https://www.redhat.com/en/about/open-source-assurance-faq
gnud 7y ago
Now, of course, IANAL. But in these discussions, I always hear 'ignore the abstract, look at the claims'. The claims describe "An image-capturing mobile device". GNOME makes software that could be used on such a device, but surely no-one can claim that software _is_ a mobile device? Claim 4 _could_ apply to the software, except it still says "mobile device" in that claim as well. This is all without even considering how ludicrous the "invention" being claimed is. I'm pretty sure I could choose to transmit only some photos, based on date, from my phone way before 2008.
akersten 7y ago
I don't understand why software patents are allowed to exist. There's nothing novel about software. Every software patent I've ever read is "a system for X" where X is something generic like "taking photos with multiple cameras and sharing them over the internet." You haven't made anything novel there, you've taken a logical product of interoperable building blocks and put an artificial legal barricade around it. It would be like Target patenting "a system for selling goods to consumers" and suing any other retailer with a checkout.
- oconnor663 7y ago
  My (layman) impression is that the "non-obviousness" requirement is supposed to deal with this problem. But it seems like the patent office is (was?) poorly calibrated for obviousness. I'm sure the lawyers writing patents intentionally make it hard on the PTO, but that must be true in every other field too, and I assume the PTO can solve that problem.
  - akersten 7y ago
    Yeah, it's super easy to make even the most mundane thing sound like space-age technology: "a process for systematic analysis of textual corpus to identify and correct erroneous deviations from accepted linguistic norms" - in other words, spell check. We can't rely on overworked examiners to decipher pseudo-technical bullshit to determine if the behavior of a software system is sufficiently non-obvious and specific. The entire concept of a software patent must be forbidden.
    - lone_haxx0r 7y ago
      I'll go one step further and say that the whole concept of patents is not only unfair, it's ineffective at what it supposedly tries to achieve (fostering innovation). For every monetary incentive of developing something new, there are 10 obstacles because of patent law. Patents are a hindrance more than an aid.
      - dual_basis 7y ago
peter_retief 7y ago
Patents are supposedly designed to protect inventors with limited resources. Dont rail against patents rather than the abusers
- gpm 7y ago
  Rail against patents. They may have been made with good intentions but they have failed miserably at their purpose.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  That may be (part) of the purpose, but the implementation details facilitate abuse. Also, software patents are somewhat controversial, with other countries banning them, so railing against them as something that shouldn't exist at all is a reasonable view to take.
  - peter_retief 7y ago
    Don't we need to find something that does help the small innovator? Maybe what patents "should" be
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ehvatum 7y ago
  Has there ever been an instance where an inventor with limited resources used a software patent to protect significant innovation? Has anyone, anywhere, ever once faced a coding challenge, searched through software patents, and found a useful solution? I'm laughing as I try to imagine either of these things happening. A friend of mine recently earned good money serving as an expert witness against a patent claiming to cover the concept of transmitting a zero over a carrier wave. You see, the patent holder never actually produced a device taking advantage of this great idea, and then he "hurt his back and couldn't work anymore", so he sued his insurance company for the billions of potential dollars he could have earned if he ever did get around to transmitting a zero...
nickodell 7y ago
Here's an interesting sentence from the complaint filed by Rothschild: >On information and belief, Defendant sells, offers to sell, and/or uses network storage systems and methods including, without limitation, the Gnome Shotwell platform, and any similar products (“Product”), which infringe at least Claim 4 of the ‘086 Patent. Does Gnome Foundation sell Shotwell?
callahad 7y ago
That complaint (https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/13472237 https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/13472237) is wild. Paragraph 19 states: > The Product practices transmitting, via a wireless transmitter and to a second image capturing device, the filtered plurality of photographic images. For example, the Product offers a number of ways to wirelessly share photos online such as through social media. It then specifically calls out a screenshot of http://yorba.org/shotwell/help/ http://yorba.org/shotwell/help/ with scary red lines highlighting how you can "export photos" and "publish to the Web" and "send photos via email, instant messaging, or in other ways." ...which just use whatever network interface the system has. And sure, that could be wireless... but it's not like Shotwell has any say (or necessarily any knowledge) of that, right? How does patent law deal with that, where the wholly circumstantial and independent properties of a product's operating environment could result in a system with emergent properties that violate the patent, and which are wholly outside of the control of the original software? E.g., if I'm using Shotwell on a home computer plugged into an Ethernet cable, but there's a radio link somewhere on the route between me and Facebook... would that instance of Shotwell suddenly be in violation of the patent?
- xigency 7y ago
  > How does patent law deal with that, where the wholly circumstantial and independent properties of a product's operating environment could result in a system with emergent properties that violate the patent, and which are wholly outside of the control of the original software? I don't think you want to know the answer to that question.
- Iv 7y ago
  It doesn't. Software patents are an absurdity that people have fought for ages. They are basically invalid in most of EU.
  - redwall_hp 7y ago
    You can't patent math, as per patent law. Software is just abstracted math. Therefore, software should not be patentable.
hiccuphippo 7y ago
Would it be feasible for someone to form a non-profit organization who's only goal is to find prior art for patent applications and kill them before they become one? Maybe as a branch of the EFF or something? Would the patent system allow for such thing to exist with the current rules or do the rules need to be changed in the first place?
- loeg 7y ago
  USPTO is now first to file, not first to invent. Prior art becomes less and less useful over time.
  - vonmoltke 7y ago
    Why do people keep repeating this? First-to-file versus first-to-invent has nothing to do with the patentability of an invention. It concerns who gets the patent if two substantially-similar but otherwise patentable inventions are submitted for patent at the same time.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - chris5745 7y ago
    According to my understanding, the current US patent system is often summarized as “first inventor to file” meaning the named inventor must believe herself to be the original inventor. Prior art is still relevant WRT patent prosecution. The AIA made several changes to patent law, perhaps most notably making the effective filing date the determining factor for purposes of applying prior art, instead of the invention date. This means interferences no longer occur. There are also now different post-grant procedures for challenging patent validity. Source: am a patent agent Disclaimer: this is not legal advice
    - loeg 7y ago
      Thanks, I definitely misunderstood the change.
- 7y ago
qwerty456127 7y ago
> Patent was filed in 2008 and is about wirelessly (wifi/bluetooth/etc) connecting an "image capturing device" (webcam/phone) with a "receiving device" (computer) and selectively (date, location, image recognition...) transmitting them. Funny. Can I patent whatever I can imagine (without actually building a working prototype) and sue everybody once the technology emerges making this possible and practical? Can science fiction writings be used as "prior art" to disqualify patents?
- Benjamin_Dobell 7y ago
  > Can science fiction writings be used as "prior art" to disqualify patents? I'm admittedly not too sure of the specifics, but Samsung was prevented from using science fiction as a "prior art" defense against Apple: http://allthingsd.com/20120802/samsung-wont-be-able-to-argue-2001-a-space-odyssey-renders-apple-patents-invalid/ http://allthingsd.com/20120802/samsung-wont-be-able-to-argue... EDIT: Coincidentally, it seems the aforementioned patent expired today, https://patents.google.com/patent/USD504889S1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/USD504889S1/en
- tensor 7y ago
  You have to explain how to build it in "sufficient detail", but you don't actually have to provide a working prototype.
  - anticensor 7y ago
    Not required, but you need to be able to provide one if patent office requests.
mrandish 7y ago
Here are the specific independent claims of the patent 9,936,086 by Leigh M. Rothschild of Rothschild Patent Imaging LLC. Obviously, Shotwell does not violate this patent. Can you think of any prior art that might invalidate the patent? All elements must be present prior to 2008. 1. An image-capturing mobile device, comprising a wireless receiver; a wireless transmitter; and a processor operably connected to the wireless receiver and the wireless transmitter, wherein the processor is configured to: receive a plurality of photographic images; filter the plurality of photographic images using a transfer criteria wherein the transfer criteria is a subject identification of a respective photographic image within the plurality of photographic images, wherein the subject identification is based on a topic, theme or individual shown in the respective photographic image; and transmit, via the wireless transmitter and to a second mobile device, the filtered plurality of photographic images. 4. A method performed by an image-capturing mobile device, comprising: receiving a plurality of photographic images; filtering the plurality of photographic images using a transfer criteria wherein the transfer criteria is a subject identification of a respective photographic image within the plurality of photographic images, wherein the subject identification is based on a topic, theme or individual shown in the respective photographic image; and transmitting, via a wireless transmitter and to a second image capturing device, the filtered plurality of photographic images. Imglorp posted elsewhere in this thread suggesting perhaps the Mars Viking spacecraft would serve as prior art which I thought was clever. The only challenge might be whether any spacecraft prior to 2008 had a "filter" function that had a "transfer criteria" of "subject identification" that was "based on a topic, theme or individual shown". I think the final element of transmitting to a "second mobile device" or a "second image capturing device" would be met by any lander that relayed through an orbiter that also had a camera.
- Mathnerd314 7y ago
  They only claim #4 in the filing.
ineedasername 7y ago
tldr: patent on wireless transfer of photos. Earliest filing appears to be 2008. Prior art abounds, perhaps most notably the EyeFi product line that came to market around 2006[0] [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20060805175034/http://www.eye.fi/ https://web.archive.org/web/20060805175034/http://www.eye.fi...
jcranmer 7y ago
Reading patents is hard, but the patent in question is easy because it's so short, and the lawsuit is explicitly saying which claim they believe is in violation. Here is the claim in full: > A method performed by an image-capturing mobile device, comprising: > receiving a plurality of photographic images; > filtering the plurality of photographic images using a transfer criteria wherein the transfer criteria is a subject identification of a respective photographic image within the plurality of photographic images, wherein the subject identification is based on a topic, theme or individual shown in the respective photographic image; > and transmitting, via a wireless transmitter and to a second image capturing device, the filtered plurality of photographic images. IANAL, and I am not sufficiently well-versed in patent law to know precisely how the terminology is to be interpreted in court, but that last element of the claim is really hard to substantiate. First, there's no evidence that it's transmitting via a wireless transmitter (if it doesn't, it can't violate the claim by definition!). Second, there is strong evidence that the destination is not a "second image capturing device." If that last clause is not violated, then the claim is not violated, and the patent is not violated. From the way the patent claims are constructed, it feels like the patent examiner narrowed the patent to cover specifically wireless point-to-point transmission of images. I don't think the court will look kindly on the broad interpretation being used here.
- KibbutzDalia 7y ago
  > Reading patents is hard You’d think that would keep all the brilliant legal minds on HN from commenting on it! I appreciate your analysis of it. You’re one of the few here who did read it.
  - Spivak 7y ago
    Patents are written in an intentionally obtuse and difficult to parse way. They're pretty much written in the style of an 11th grader who is overdoing the thesaurus to try and sound smart while conveying as little actual meaning as possible. It's not like you actually want your competitors to be able to reproduce your idea -- you just want the protections.
sbhn 7y ago
Software patents ensure that every major software supplier in the world is an American controlled company. Not awarding the patent claim would be a threat against American national security.
shmerl 7y ago
Parent sounds trivial and should be busted as having prior art.
unnouinceput 7y ago
Muhahahaha, best joke this week. GNOME gonna trample all over them in court and not only.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
droithomme 7y ago
> Patent was filed in 2008 and is about wirelessly (wifi/bluetooth/etc) connecting an "image capturing device" (webcam/phone) with a "receiving device" (computer) and selectively (date, location, image recognition...) transmitting them. Pfffft. Primitive animals destroying civilization at this Rothschild troll plantation. We need patent reform that involves criminal felony penalties for trolls on the basis that their actions greviously harm civilization. Get these parasites off the street and away from harming the people doing actual useful work.
michaelmrose 7y ago
Registering a patent for things that plainly pre existing isn't merely improper it isn't much different than taking a crowbar to your door while you are away to steal away with your valuables. If you should happen to chase the thief away this time it isn't much of a victory if the thief and his compatriots faces little to no consequences. Firstly software patents are a net negative and shouldn't be a thing. Next plainly frivolous patents should subject the owner to a fine at time of application. Make the seeker pay an additional bond forfeit for frivolous patents. Next make granting bad patents expensive for the government. Let anyone read patents in process and by proving them void claim the aforementioned bond.
- nefitty 7y ago
  These sound like really good ideas. It sets up the incentives in the right way to facilitate innovation. Have you studied these propositions in the past, or are these ideas you came up with after researching?
ent101 7y ago
What's in it for a patent troll to sue GNOME?!
fourier_mode 7y ago
Looks like the patent assignee(https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Leigh+M.+Rothschild https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Leigh+M.+Rothschild) has filed a lot of similarly vague patents.
proc0 7y ago
Suing anything GNU or Linux related is pretty low.
Sephr 7y ago
Shotwell doesn't support the wireless transmission of images, the supporting WiFi/LTE/etc firmware stack (if applicable) does. I'm not sure how it could be argued that the Shotwell codebase contains anything specifically related to supporting wireless data transfer.
gertrunde 7y ago
A group of companies that has form as well... A previous recipient of the FSF 'Stupid Patent of the Month' award... https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/stupid-patent-of-the-month-internet-drink-mixer-vs-everyone/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/stupid-patent-of...
cestith 7y ago
IANAL but the claims appear to be about one device filtering which photos it sends to other devices based on identifying the photographic subjects (people, buildings, or animals) and forwarding photographs that contain certain subjects to particular other devices wirelessly. Shotwell is just an application which supports filtering based on manually applied labels, not an image-classifying AI with a wireless network stack. Setting aside prior art for a moment, it seems like a pretty far stretch to say that classifying files according to metadata and uploading them to Flickr or Pinterest is equivalent to identifying the subject of a photograph and making it wirelessly accessible to another local device. Is anyone, I mean anyone, here unaware of software prior to 1998 that would filter files into different folders based on, say, ID3 tags, EXIF data, or file timestamps?
ulucs 7y ago
If only GNOME was part of a foundation which worked to advance software freedom... Oh well, I hope the #cancelstallman team will be of more help than the FSF.
paulcarroty 7y ago
The lawsuit is laughable for 2019, especially section with importing photos. I'll donate for easy, but hope IBM can defend their investments.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dragonsh 7y ago
This is the results of software patents, do not entertain software and algorithm patents and this will not happen. Hopefully USA can reform to follow Europe and rest of the work in this. Even if the patent is invalidated, it has already created a lot of unnecessary work and no innovation. I am just thinking Gnome foundation can fight, think of a small firm who doesn’t have money to fight and represent in court. This seems to be right opposite of patents to protect innovation. It looks like patents to litigate and make money and hamper any innovation. After so many frivolous patents like amazon single click, oracle java and many more I don’t see any innovation but attack on innovation and waste of time and money on not required debate in court. I believe this system is in place to generate jobs for lawyers who will not be able to earn otherwise. Lawyers promote strict patent laws and many non sensible, as many politicians are lawyers not innovators.
musicale 7y ago
I think we need a better "obviousness" hurdle for patents. And we need to get rid of "do something we already do, but wirelessly!" patents and "do something we already do, but using a computer or network!" patents.
ww520 7y ago
Patents that are too broad are routinely invalidated in courts. It's just going to trial is expensive so the patent trolls are hoping people would settle long before it goes to trial.
zadokshi 7y ago
Could we update our open source licenses to have a clause that the software can not be licensed to (or used by employees of a company) on a patent troll register. (With a clear definitions of what gets a company on a patent troll register) This type of company would soon not even be able to keep a website online.
- Iv 7y ago
  Not exactly what you are asking for, but the v3 of the GPL is mostly about adding protections against patent lawsuits.
- flukus 7y ago
  Then it wouldn't be free software (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). Freedom 0 is the most critical item: > The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
signa11 7y ago
SNR is quite low...
wyqydsyq 7y ago
Even more incredible, this guy has a patent on recharging mobile devices? Filed in 2012?! Does the US patent office even read submissions before approving them? Or are they just dinosaurs who have never even used a mobile phone up to 2012? https://patents.google.com/patent/US9448603B2/en?inventor=Leigh+M.+Rothschild https://patents.google.com/patent/US9448603B2/en?inventor=Le...
arianvanp 7y ago
What if they just ignored it? Isn't Gnome foundation Europe based? Software patents are void here in most cases.
jacquesm 7y ago
Note the Leigh M. Rotschild Intellectual Ventures link: https://www.intellectualventures.com/buzz/insights/inventor-spotlight-leigh-rothschild https://www.intellectualventures.com/buzz/insights/inventor-... Birds of a feather.
blue_devil 7y ago
How about nipping this nonsense at the source, and crowdsourcing patent applications processing? With the backlog there is in the US, it's not so surprising that ridiculously generic patents were granted (and probably being granted).
iamdumb 7y ago
Fick die Synagoge der Satan- und Arschloch-Italiener!

604 points by globuous 7y ago

Abstract of the patent in question: "A system and method for distributing at least one digital photographic image is presented, the system and method comprising at least one capturing device and at least one receiving device disposed in a communicative relation with one another via at least one wireless network. In particular, the capturing device is structured to capture the at least one digital photographic image via, for example, a capture assembly, whereas the receiving device is cooperatively structured to receive the digital photographic image via, for example, the at least one wireless network. In addition, the capturing device(s) and receiving device(s) may be disposed in a selectively paired relationship via one or more common pre-defined pairing criteria. Further, the at least one digital photographic image may be filtered via at least one pre-defined transfer criteria disposed on the capturing device and/or receiving device."

lazyguy2 7y ago
What a bunch of assholes. Federal government really needs to stop enabling these people.
- giancarlostoro 7y ago
  These kind of claims should yield further investigations into the rest of the patents of the companies that have too many patents. Especially if their only source of income is patents. If found that they hold invalid patents to things that have prior "art" or implementations, those specific patents should be revoked.
  - lazyguy2 7y ago
    At the very least the company must show damages to sales or something like that. The whole patent system in general is a massive drag on innovation and the economy. Sure it's supposed to do the opposite, but that the difference between theory and practice. The way it is now it's harms technological progress with this sort of nonsense.
    - giancarlostoro 7y ago
      Whats worse yet is does GNOME even generate any revenue from Shotwell? If not... this is such a low blow.
      - CameronNemo 7y ago
        From what I remember, they only picked it up once the Yorba Foundation folded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorba_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorba_Foundation
  - darksaints 7y ago
    I wish there was an organization of non-patent holders (to reduce risks of retaliation) that does nothing but work to find prior art in patent troll portfolios, invalidating them and destroying their business. There are so many obviously shady patents that these trolls hold onto, it should be pretty easy to get the low hanging fruit.
    - giancarlostoro 7y ago
      A non-profit that sues patent trolls for money to fund itself. A reverse troll for patent trolls.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - erik_seaberg 7y ago
        The fee is something like $16K to start either a post-grant or inter partes review, and even if you win you don't get that money back. There's no reward other than being in a more sane industry.
- egdod 7y ago
  The abstract of a patent means almost nothing.
- lone_haxx0r 7y ago
  They're just playing by the rules of the game. If there are any assholes in this situation, they're the people who set up the patent system and the ones thay defend its existence.
- KibbutzDalia 7y ago
  Why do you want to tear up the U.S. constitution?
  - lazyguy2 7y ago
    I want to eliminate the stupid parts. Commerce clause can go, too.
crooked-v 7y ago
But that's just having a wifi webcam, isn't it? How in the world is that novel enough to get a patent?
- briffle 7y ago
  Pretty sure I had a photographer friend with a CFCard with built-in wifi before 2008 when this patent was filed.
  - imglorp 7y ago
    Something changed recently, making the US "first to file". Did that totally eliminate the concept of prior art? I mean, if you're looking for that, the Viking lander in 1976 did the same thing: transmit a digital image from the capture device, filter and save it at the other end. Even Mariner 4, in 1964 might fit those criteria. https://www.uspto.gov/patent/first-inventor-file-fitf-resources https://www.uspto.gov/patent/first-inventor-file-fitf-resour...
    - toast0 7y ago
      > Something changed recently, making the US "first to file". Did that totally eliminate the concept of prior art? No, it just removes the question of when an invention happened. Under first to invent, if two similar patents are filed, there is some effort required to determine which was invented first, and gets priority. Under first to file, it's much simpler to determine. Prior art is still a reason to deny a patent, and patent examiners are still likely to miss it.
      - bscphil 7y ago
        Then what exactly does first to file even mean? If you and I both invent something, but I invent it a month after you do and file for a patent first, would it be granted since I'm the first to file, or could you invalidate the claim by showing that there was prior art - specifically, your prior invention of the same thing?
IshKebab 7y ago
The abstract is irrelevant. It's the claims that matter, especially the top level claims (1 and 4). In this patent they are both about "an image-capturing mobile device", which Shotwell pretty clearly isn't. They stand zero chance of winning this.
KibbutzDalia 7y ago
Read the claims. Not the abstract.

GenghisSean 7y ago

This looks like a patent troll. The functionality they have patented is quite basic for a modern photo program.

arathore 7y ago
The inventor has about 134 patents [1] and many of which seem (to me) very generic. I am not very familiar with patent jargon so I can't definitively say if those patents have enough substance to them. Maybe someone with experience could expand on this? [1] https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Leigh+M.+Rothschild&sort=new https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Leigh+M.+Rothschild&sor...
- anticensor 7y ago
  Patent applications are usually not written by inventors themselves. Hence, they have vague and/or prolonged language to cover the invention more.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

adamnemecek 7y ago

"Rothschild Patent Imaging LLC" Best company name.

misterdoubt 7y ago
At least there's self-awareness here.

looperhacks 7y ago

This patent went active today. The patent seems very basic. This looks like a patent troll, doesn't it? The described idea wasn't really novel when they applied for the patent

hiccuphippo 7y ago
I'm sure Nasa has been wirelessly sending images from mobile devices for decades.
barbegal 7y ago
The patent didn't go active today (Google Patents just shows it is currently active today) and has already been used in other lawsuits that were dismissed by a court https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A16-cv-01382 https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern...
- lwf 7y ago
  For clarity, though, this case was dismissed without prejudice on the basis of an improper venue. The patent still looks bogus, but don't draw any premature conclusions from the above-cited case.

Signez 7y ago

They are patent-trolling a non-profit. facepalm

wyldfire 7y ago
The fact that they're a nonprofit makes them a great target.
- wtfrmyinitials 7y ago
  Why? There isn't much for a troll to plunder
  - wyldfire 7y ago
    The business of patent trolls is to find targets too small to have counsel on staff. The cost of sending a letter is negligible so even very "small" amounts (a few thousand USD) is a huge win. Non-profits can easily make their benefit calculation to send off a few thousand and/or hire counsel just to cover a cheap settlement. Much less expensive than the cost of litigation.

leafo 7y ago

Serial patent troll: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/garmin-sued-in-east-texas-over-patents-on-an-internet-drink-mixer-seeks-legal-fees/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/garmin-sued-in-e...

lol768 7y ago

GNOME should consider a call for prior art, similar to Cloudflare's Project Jengo. It would be a concrete way to crowdsource help to fight back against what looks like a patent troll.

Benjamin_Dobell 7y ago

Wow, going after GNOME is such an incredibly stupid thing for a patent troll to do. Once EFF get involved they can kiss their patent good-bye.

locusofself 7y ago
I have no idea, but I would hope so..
sounds 7y ago
Part of the stupidity of filing a lawsuit against GNOME is that the awards are either statutory damages (pay what you should have paid before) or punitive damages (pay a higher price because you are willfully violating the patent). If the court invalidates the patent, which is likely, GNOME and other free software projects can use that as a precedent in the future, which makes it harder for trolls to operate. The smart troll picks "soft targets" who will just roll over and pay. If the court awards statutory damages, GNOME made no money because they sold no software, so it's possible the statutory damages ends up being less than the cost to litigate. The smart troll does not pick "zero-value targets" like GNOME. If the court awards punitive damages, GNOME has very little revenue and may not be able to pay all the damages. The smart troll does not pick "poor targets" like GNOME. This feels like a poorly-paid paralegal just shotgunned a bunch of suits and really, really screwed up.
- Ahwleung 7y ago
  If they (somehow) won or GNOME foundation settled, could they use that precedent to go after juicier targets? Maybe their strategy was to pick a "poor target" to set that precedent? Disclaimer: I don't know anything in this space.
  - sounds 7y ago
    I am not a lawyer. I am not GNOME's lawyer. If they get a judgment against GNOME for violating this patent, it would make a lot of news and likely be appealed. Getting to a final precedent in favor of patent infringement would take years, sinking lots of lawyer dollars into the effort, and the whole process is fraught with an enormous amount of risk. I just don't see them having that kind of long play in their playbook. But I don't know anyone involved... It could be they are acting stupid but are really smart?

thaumaturgy 7y ago

Rothschild Patent Imaging appears to be the company holding the rights to a number of dubious patents filed by Leigh M. Rothschild, who appears to have a well-deserved reputation as a patent troll [1][2]. I hope Gnome is able to take a Newegg approach here and kill the patent. [1]: http://www.unhappyfranchisee.com/qr-code-patent-troll-sues-dickeys-barbecue/ http://www.unhappyfranchisee.com/qr-code-patent-troll-sues-d... [2]: "A Florida inventor named Leigh M. Rothschild is the largest single NPE based on the number of defendants who have been added to patent lawsuits he filed, according to the the report." https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2016/0106/Despite-crackdown-from-courts-patent-suits-still-battered-tech-companies-in-2015 https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2016/0106/Despite-crack...

mcherm 7y ago
> I hope Gnome is able to take a Newegg approach here and kill the patent. How do you propose paying for that? It is fantastically expensive.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- tombert 7y ago
  If anyone from the Gnome team is listening, if you guys started a GoFundMe or something to help with legal fees to challenge this, I would throw twenty bucks your way. I'd be happy if someone held me to that.
  - hipsterstal1n 7y ago
    It cost Newegg $60,000 to fight their patent troll. Gnome team is going to need a lot more then $20.
    - hondadriver 7y ago
      He will not be the only one throwing $20...

cjhanks 7y ago

He started BarPoint.com which at one point lost $3.53 mil on $23,185 revenue [1]. What a joke. [1] https://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2002/08/12/daily90.html https://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2002/08/12/...

synthmeat 7y ago

https://www.gnome.org/support-gnome/donate/ https://www.gnome.org/support-gnome/donate/ Let's use up the news momentum to give GNOME (more) resources to bury these fuckers.

twobat 7y ago
I always thought of Gnome as a Redhat product.
- madrix999 7y ago
  Isn't KDE maintained by RedHat? There was news a while back about them killing off KDE in the near future
  - beojan 7y ago
    No. They just aren't packaging KDE for RHEL.
  - zaat 7y ago
    You are confusing KDE with X11, which is maintained by Red Hat and was announced as going into maintenance mode in favor of Wayland.
    - Arnavion 7y ago
      They weren't confusing it with X, though they were misremembering RH's role - https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/7/html-single/7.6_release_notes/index#idm139718396587376 https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterp...
- dylan-m 7y ago
  Nope! Current GNOME foundation board has one RedHat employee, out of six people. RedHat contributes a lot to the project, because they are one of few companies making a desktop distro with serious resources behind it. (That, and RedHat understands open source enough that they see collaborating upstream as a net benefit). But GNOME is its own thing, and always has been, built by contributions from all sorts of places.

LameRubberDucky 7y ago

After reading through the patent and the suit, their comparison to Shotwell is ridiculous. In the patent, they even describe how Shotwell and other similar photo gallery programs that can share to social medial work and further go on to explain how their patent is different from these. The patent essentially is for a group of wireless devices to be linked together at say a wedding, when one person takes a picture, the picture is transmitted wirelessly and automatically to the paired devices, digital cameras, smartphones, computers, etc. So, everyone's smartphones or digital cameras pair together and anyone that takes a photo has that photo distributed to the other devices. How is that anything like Shotwell?

dylan-m 7y ago
Someone pointed out that the patent became active _today_. I wonder if they filed other lawsuits based on this patent as well? Would make sense that they target a bunch of small software developers who can't defend themselves in hopes of some easy settlements, but they rather miscalculated on GNOME.

linuxftw 7y ago

An interesting thing about patents in the US is that this company could also sue any organization using the infringing software (eg, a Linux distro that uses GNOME, and it's customers). Red Hat offers to fight and protect end-users of their software that might get caught up in a patent fight like this one: https://www.redhat.com/en/about/open-source-assurance-faq https://www.redhat.com/en/about/open-source-assurance-faq

gnud 7y ago

Now, of course, IANAL. But in these discussions, I always hear 'ignore the abstract, look at the claims'. The claims describe "An image-capturing mobile device". GNOME makes software that could be used on such a device, but surely no-one can claim that software _is_ a mobile device? Claim 4 _could_ apply to the software, except it still says "mobile device" in that claim as well. This is all without even considering how ludicrous the "invention" being claimed is. I'm pretty sure I could choose to transmit only some photos, based on date, from my phone way before 2008.

akersten 7y ago

I don't understand why software patents are allowed to exist. There's nothing novel about software. Every software patent I've ever read is "a system for X" where X is something generic like "taking photos with multiple cameras and sharing them over the internet." You haven't made anything novel there, you've taken a logical product of interoperable building blocks and put an artificial legal barricade around it. It would be like Target patenting "a system for selling goods to consumers" and suing any other retailer with a checkout.

oconnor663 7y ago
My (layman) impression is that the "non-obviousness" requirement is supposed to deal with this problem. But it seems like the patent office is (was?) poorly calibrated for obviousness. I'm sure the lawyers writing patents intentionally make it hard on the PTO, but that must be true in every other field too, and I assume the PTO can solve that problem.
- akersten 7y ago
  Yeah, it's super easy to make even the most mundane thing sound like space-age technology: "a process for systematic analysis of textual corpus to identify and correct erroneous deviations from accepted linguistic norms" - in other words, spell check. We can't rely on overworked examiners to decipher pseudo-technical bullshit to determine if the behavior of a software system is sufficiently non-obvious and specific. The entire concept of a software patent must be forbidden.
  - lone_haxx0r 7y ago
    I'll go one step further and say that the whole concept of patents is not only unfair, it's ineffective at what it supposedly tries to achieve (fostering innovation). For every monetary incentive of developing something new, there are 10 obstacles because of patent law. Patents are a hindrance more than an aid.
    - dual_basis 7y ago

peter_retief 7y ago

Patents are supposedly designed to protect inventors with limited resources. Dont rail against patents rather than the abusers

gpm 7y ago
Rail against patents. They may have been made with good intentions but they have failed miserably at their purpose.
ineedasername 7y ago
That may be (part) of the purpose, but the implementation details facilitate abuse. Also, software patents are somewhat controversial, with other countries banning them, so railing against them as something that shouldn't exist at all is a reasonable view to take.
- peter_retief 7y ago
  Don't we need to find something that does help the small innovator? Maybe what patents "should" be
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ehvatum 7y ago
Has there ever been an instance where an inventor with limited resources used a software patent to protect significant innovation? Has anyone, anywhere, ever once faced a coding challenge, searched through software patents, and found a useful solution? I'm laughing as I try to imagine either of these things happening. A friend of mine recently earned good money serving as an expert witness against a patent claiming to cover the concept of transmitting a zero over a carrier wave. You see, the patent holder never actually produced a device taking advantage of this great idea, and then he "hurt his back and couldn't work anymore", so he sued his insurance company for the billions of potential dollars he could have earned if he ever did get around to transmitting a zero...

nickodell 7y ago

Here's an interesting sentence from the complaint filed by Rothschild: >On information and belief, Defendant sells, offers to sell, and/or uses network storage systems and methods including, without limitation, the Gnome Shotwell platform, and any similar products (“Product”), which infringe at least Claim 4 of the ‘086 Patent. Does Gnome Foundation sell Shotwell?

callahad 7y ago

That complaint (https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/13472237 https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/13472237) is wild. Paragraph 19 states: > The Product practices transmitting, via a wireless transmitter and to a second image capturing device, the filtered plurality of photographic images. For example, the Product offers a number of ways to wirelessly share photos online such as through social media. It then specifically calls out a screenshot of http://yorba.org/shotwell/help/ http://yorba.org/shotwell/help/ with scary red lines highlighting how you can "export photos" and "publish to the Web" and "send photos via email, instant messaging, or in other ways." ...which just use whatever network interface the system has. And sure, that could be wireless... but it's not like Shotwell has any say (or necessarily any knowledge) of that, right? How does patent law deal with that, where the wholly circumstantial and independent properties of a product's operating environment could result in a system with emergent properties that violate the patent, and which are wholly outside of the control of the original software? E.g., if I'm using Shotwell on a home computer plugged into an Ethernet cable, but there's a radio link somewhere on the route between me and Facebook... would that instance of Shotwell suddenly be in violation of the patent?

xigency 7y ago
> How does patent law deal with that, where the wholly circumstantial and independent properties of a product's operating environment could result in a system with emergent properties that violate the patent, and which are wholly outside of the control of the original software? I don't think you want to know the answer to that question.
Iv 7y ago
It doesn't. Software patents are an absurdity that people have fought for ages. They are basically invalid in most of EU.
- redwall_hp 7y ago
  You can't patent math, as per patent law. Software is just abstracted math. Therefore, software should not be patentable.

hiccuphippo 7y ago

Would it be feasible for someone to form a non-profit organization who's only goal is to find prior art for patent applications and kill them before they become one? Maybe as a branch of the EFF or something? Would the patent system allow for such thing to exist with the current rules or do the rules need to be changed in the first place?

loeg 7y ago
USPTO is now first to file, not first to invent. Prior art becomes less and less useful over time.
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  Why do people keep repeating this? First-to-file versus first-to-invent has nothing to do with the patentability of an invention. It concerns who gets the patent if two substantially-similar but otherwise patentable inventions are submitted for patent at the same time.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- chris5745 7y ago
  According to my understanding, the current US patent system is often summarized as “first inventor to file” meaning the named inventor must believe herself to be the original inventor. Prior art is still relevant WRT patent prosecution. The AIA made several changes to patent law, perhaps most notably making the effective filing date the determining factor for purposes of applying prior art, instead of the invention date. This means interferences no longer occur. There are also now different post-grant procedures for challenging patent validity. Source: am a patent agent Disclaimer: this is not legal advice
  - loeg 7y ago
    Thanks, I definitely misunderstood the change.
7y ago

qwerty456127 7y ago

> Patent was filed in 2008 and is about wirelessly (wifi/bluetooth/etc) connecting an "image capturing device" (webcam/phone) with a "receiving device" (computer) and selectively (date, location, image recognition...) transmitting them. Funny. Can I patent whatever I can imagine (without actually building a working prototype) and sue everybody once the technology emerges making this possible and practical? Can science fiction writings be used as "prior art" to disqualify patents?

Benjamin_Dobell 7y ago
> Can science fiction writings be used as "prior art" to disqualify patents? I'm admittedly not too sure of the specifics, but Samsung was prevented from using science fiction as a "prior art" defense against Apple: http://allthingsd.com/20120802/samsung-wont-be-able-to-argue-2001-a-space-odyssey-renders-apple-patents-invalid/ http://allthingsd.com/20120802/samsung-wont-be-able-to-argue... EDIT: Coincidentally, it seems the aforementioned patent expired today, https://patents.google.com/patent/USD504889S1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/USD504889S1/en
tensor 7y ago
You have to explain how to build it in "sufficient detail", but you don't actually have to provide a working prototype.
- anticensor 7y ago
  Not required, but you need to be able to provide one if patent office requests.

mrandish 7y ago

Here are the specific independent claims of the patent 9,936,086 by Leigh M. Rothschild of Rothschild Patent Imaging LLC. Obviously, Shotwell does not violate this patent. Can you think of any prior art that might invalidate the patent? All elements must be present prior to 2008. 1. An image-capturing mobile device, comprising a wireless receiver; a wireless transmitter; and a processor operably connected to the wireless receiver and the wireless transmitter, wherein the processor is configured to: receive a plurality of photographic images; filter the plurality of photographic images using a transfer criteria wherein the transfer criteria is a subject identification of a respective photographic image within the plurality of photographic images, wherein the subject identification is based on a topic, theme or individual shown in the respective photographic image; and transmit, via the wireless transmitter and to a second mobile device, the filtered plurality of photographic images. 4. A method performed by an image-capturing mobile device, comprising: receiving a plurality of photographic images; filtering the plurality of photographic images using a transfer criteria wherein the transfer criteria is a subject identification of a respective photographic image within the plurality of photographic images, wherein the subject identification is based on a topic, theme or individual shown in the respective photographic image; and transmitting, via a wireless transmitter and to a second image capturing device, the filtered plurality of photographic images. Imglorp posted elsewhere in this thread suggesting perhaps the Mars Viking spacecraft would serve as prior art which I thought was clever. The only challenge might be whether any spacecraft prior to 2008 had a "filter" function that had a "transfer criteria" of "subject identification" that was "based on a topic, theme or individual shown". I think the final element of transmitting to a "second mobile device" or a "second image capturing device" would be met by any lander that relayed through an orbiter that also had a camera.

Mathnerd314 7y ago
They only claim #4 in the filing.

ineedasername 7y ago

tldr: patent on wireless transfer of photos. Earliest filing appears to be 2008. Prior art abounds, perhaps most notably the EyeFi product line that came to market around 2006[0] [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20060805175034/http://www.eye.fi/ https://web.archive.org/web/20060805175034/http://www.eye.fi...

jcranmer 7y ago

Reading patents is hard, but the patent in question is easy because it's so short, and the lawsuit is explicitly saying which claim they believe is in violation. Here is the claim in full: > A method performed by an image-capturing mobile device, comprising: > receiving a plurality of photographic images; > filtering the plurality of photographic images using a transfer criteria wherein the transfer criteria is a subject identification of a respective photographic image within the plurality of photographic images, wherein the subject identification is based on a topic, theme or individual shown in the respective photographic image; > and transmitting, via a wireless transmitter and to a second image capturing device, the filtered plurality of photographic images. IANAL, and I am not sufficiently well-versed in patent law to know precisely how the terminology is to be interpreted in court, but that last element of the claim is really hard to substantiate. First, there's no evidence that it's transmitting via a wireless transmitter (if it doesn't, it can't violate the claim by definition!). Second, there is strong evidence that the destination is not a "second image capturing device." If that last clause is not violated, then the claim is not violated, and the patent is not violated. From the way the patent claims are constructed, it feels like the patent examiner narrowed the patent to cover specifically wireless point-to-point transmission of images. I don't think the court will look kindly on the broad interpretation being used here.

KibbutzDalia 7y ago
> Reading patents is hard You’d think that would keep all the brilliant legal minds on HN from commenting on it! I appreciate your analysis of it. You’re one of the few here who did read it.
- Spivak 7y ago
  Patents are written in an intentionally obtuse and difficult to parse way. They're pretty much written in the style of an 11th grader who is overdoing the thesaurus to try and sound smart while conveying as little actual meaning as possible. It's not like you actually want your competitors to be able to reproduce your idea -- you just want the protections.

sbhn 7y ago

Software patents ensure that every major software supplier in the world is an American controlled company. Not awarding the patent claim would be a threat against American national security.

shmerl 7y ago

Parent sounds trivial and should be busted as having prior art.

unnouinceput 7y ago

Muhahahaha, best joke this week. GNOME gonna trample all over them in court and not only.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

droithomme 7y ago

> Patent was filed in 2008 and is about wirelessly (wifi/bluetooth/etc) connecting an "image capturing device" (webcam/phone) with a "receiving device" (computer) and selectively (date, location, image recognition...) transmitting them. Pfffft. Primitive animals destroying civilization at this Rothschild troll plantation. We need patent reform that involves criminal felony penalties for trolls on the basis that their actions greviously harm civilization. Get these parasites off the street and away from harming the people doing actual useful work.

michaelmrose 7y ago

Registering a patent for things that plainly pre existing isn't merely improper it isn't much different than taking a crowbar to your door while you are away to steal away with your valuables. If you should happen to chase the thief away this time it isn't much of a victory if the thief and his compatriots faces little to no consequences. Firstly software patents are a net negative and shouldn't be a thing. Next plainly frivolous patents should subject the owner to a fine at time of application. Make the seeker pay an additional bond forfeit for frivolous patents. Next make granting bad patents expensive for the government. Let anyone read patents in process and by proving them void claim the aforementioned bond.

nefitty 7y ago
These sound like really good ideas. It sets up the incentives in the right way to facilitate innovation. Have you studied these propositions in the past, or are these ideas you came up with after researching?

ent101 7y ago

What's in it for a patent troll to sue GNOME?!

fourier_mode 7y ago

Looks like the patent assignee(https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Leigh+M.+Rothschild https://patents.google.com/?inventor=Leigh+M.+Rothschild) has filed a lot of similarly vague patents.

proc0 7y ago

Suing anything GNU or Linux related is pretty low.

Sephr 7y ago

Shotwell doesn't support the wireless transmission of images, the supporting WiFi/LTE/etc firmware stack (if applicable) does. I'm not sure how it could be argued that the Shotwell codebase contains anything specifically related to supporting wireless data transfer.

gertrunde 7y ago

A group of companies that has form as well... A previous recipient of the FSF 'Stupid Patent of the Month' award... https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/stupid-patent-of-the-month-internet-drink-mixer-vs-everyone/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/stupid-patent-of...

cestith 7y ago

IANAL but the claims appear to be about one device filtering which photos it sends to other devices based on identifying the photographic subjects (people, buildings, or animals) and forwarding photographs that contain certain subjects to particular other devices wirelessly. Shotwell is just an application which supports filtering based on manually applied labels, not an image-classifying AI with a wireless network stack. Setting aside prior art for a moment, it seems like a pretty far stretch to say that classifying files according to metadata and uploading them to Flickr or Pinterest is equivalent to identifying the subject of a photograph and making it wirelessly accessible to another local device. Is anyone, I mean anyone, here unaware of software prior to 1998 that would filter files into different folders based on, say, ID3 tags, EXIF data, or file timestamps?

ulucs 7y ago

If only GNOME was part of a foundation which worked to advance software freedom... Oh well, I hope the #cancelstallman team will be of more help than the FSF.

paulcarroty 7y ago

The lawsuit is laughable for 2019, especially section with importing photos. I'll donate for easy, but hope IBM can defend their investments.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dragonsh 7y ago

This is the results of software patents, do not entertain software and algorithm patents and this will not happen. Hopefully USA can reform to follow Europe and rest of the work in this. Even if the patent is invalidated, it has already created a lot of unnecessary work and no innovation. I am just thinking Gnome foundation can fight, think of a small firm who doesn’t have money to fight and represent in court. This seems to be right opposite of patents to protect innovation. It looks like patents to litigate and make money and hamper any innovation. After so many frivolous patents like amazon single click, oracle java and many more I don’t see any innovation but attack on innovation and waste of time and money on not required debate in court. I believe this system is in place to generate jobs for lawyers who will not be able to earn otherwise. Lawyers promote strict patent laws and many non sensible, as many politicians are lawyers not innovators.

musicale 7y ago

I think we need a better "obviousness" hurdle for patents. And we need to get rid of "do something we already do, but wirelessly!" patents and "do something we already do, but using a computer or network!" patents.

ww520 7y ago

Patents that are too broad are routinely invalidated in courts. It's just going to trial is expensive so the patent trolls are hoping people would settle long before it goes to trial.

zadokshi 7y ago

Could we update our open source licenses to have a clause that the software can not be licensed to (or used by employees of a company) on a patent troll register. (With a clear definitions of what gets a company on a patent troll register) This type of company would soon not even be able to keep a website online.

Iv 7y ago
Not exactly what you are asking for, but the v3 of the GPL is mostly about adding protections against patent lawsuits.
flukus 7y ago
Then it wouldn't be free software (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). Freedom 0 is the most critical item: > The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

signa11 7y ago

SNR is quite low...

wyqydsyq 7y ago

Even more incredible, this guy has a patent on recharging mobile devices? Filed in 2012?! Does the US patent office even read submissions before approving them? Or are they just dinosaurs who have never even used a mobile phone up to 2012? https://patents.google.com/patent/US9448603B2/en?inventor=Leigh+M.+Rothschild https://patents.google.com/patent/US9448603B2/en?inventor=Le...

arianvanp 7y ago

What if they just ignored it? Isn't Gnome foundation Europe based? Software patents are void here in most cases.

jacquesm 7y ago

Note the Leigh M. Rotschild Intellectual Ventures link: https://www.intellectualventures.com/buzz/insights/inventor-spotlight-leigh-rothschild https://www.intellectualventures.com/buzz/insights/inventor-... Birds of a feather.

blue_devil 7y ago

How about nipping this nonsense at the source, and crowdsourcing patent applications processing? With the backlog there is in the US, it's not so surprising that ridiculously generic patents were granted (and probably being granted).

iamdumb 7y ago

Fick die Synagoge der Satan- und Arschloch-Italiener!