5 ms·

But that's just having a wifi webcam, isn't it? How in the world is that novel enough to get a patent?

by crooked-v 7y ago

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?
      - toast0 7y ago
        It depends. If I invented it, and kept it to myself, and don't get around to filing a patent until after you; first to file means you get the patent. I may have rights to continue to use the invention as a prior user, but I'm not familiar with the details there. If I published it before you filed though, that's prior art. Again, I'm not super familiar with details here of if it had to be published for some time or just the day before is fine.
  - mrandish 7y ago
    > the Viking lander in 1976 I love this as prior art. The Viking lander was definitely "a mobile device", was wireless and transferred images. I think the only question might be if the "filtering" involved qualifies.
    - droithomme 7y ago
      I wonder when we started sending digital images from space. Apollo did not use them but sent analog signals. But I think Voyager used digital images. Commercial digital TV was first introduced in the US in 1994, also predating this patent. That's fairly well known and widespread, also all of the TVs all of us own and which are part of FCC standards violate this patent.
lazyguy2 7y ago
the abstract/summary portion of a patent is worthless. It's just a executive summary. You have to look at the steps. A patent is a recipe for 'creating' the invention. You do A, and B, and C, and then D, and then furthermore E... etc etc. You have to look at those steps and understand what they mean to see what the actual patent is about. So if the patent says 'You need to do A, B, C, and D' and Gnome does "A, B, and D", but not C... then Gnome doesn't violate the patent. Changing the behavior of the application or showing how the application doesn't follow all the steps outlined in the patent is probably the most effective way to 'defeat' a patent. But regardless it's a frivolous lawsuit that will likely cost Gnome a lot of money and time for no good reason.
- jszymborski 7y ago
  > ...a frivolous lawsuit that will likely cost Gnome a lot of money I would be very surprised if an org like the EFF didn't step in and do a lot of free work. I'd gladly pay into a legal defence fund specifically to ensure that the word on the street is that patent trolls going after open-source developers get taken to the cleaners.

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?
    - toast0 7y ago
      It depends. If I invented it, and kept it to myself, and don't get around to filing a patent until after you; first to file means you get the patent. I may have rights to continue to use the invention as a prior user, but I'm not familiar with the details there. If I published it before you filed though, that's prior art. Again, I'm not super familiar with details here of if it had to be published for some time or just the day before is fine.
- mrandish 7y ago
  > the Viking lander in 1976 I love this as prior art. The Viking lander was definitely "a mobile device", was wireless and transferred images. I think the only question might be if the "filtering" involved qualifies.
  - droithomme 7y ago
    I wonder when we started sending digital images from space. Apollo did not use them but sent analog signals. But I think Voyager used digital images. Commercial digital TV was first introduced in the US in 1994, also predating this patent. That's fairly well known and widespread, also all of the TVs all of us own and which are part of FCC standards violate this patent.

lazyguy2 7y ago

the abstract/summary portion of a patent is worthless. It's just a executive summary. You have to look at the steps. A patent is a recipe for 'creating' the invention. You do A, and B, and C, and then D, and then furthermore E... etc etc. You have to look at those steps and understand what they mean to see what the actual patent is about. So if the patent says 'You need to do A, B, C, and D' and Gnome does "A, B, and D", but not C... then Gnome doesn't violate the patent. Changing the behavior of the application or showing how the application doesn't follow all the steps outlined in the patent is probably the most effective way to 'defeat' a patent. But regardless it's a frivolous lawsuit that will likely cost Gnome a lot of money and time for no good reason.

jszymborski 7y ago
> ...a frivolous lawsuit that will likely cost Gnome a lot of money I would be very surprised if an org like the EFF didn't step in and do a lot of free work. I'd gladly pay into a legal defence fund specifically to ensure that the word on the street is that patent trolls going after open-source developers get taken to the cleaners.