5 ms·

Abstract of the patent in question: "A system and method for distributing at least one digital photographic image is presented, the system and method comprisin

by 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.

by messe 7y ago

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.