5 ms·

Seems like this https://phys.org/news/2005-09-world-built-in-wi-fi-enabled-digital.html#targetText=The%20Coolpix%20P1%20and%20P2,cameras%20to%20hit%20the%20mark

Seems like this https://phys.org/news/2005-09-world-built-in-wi-fi-enabled-digital.html#targetText=The%20Coolpix%20P1%20and%20P2,cameras%20to%20hit%20the%20marketplace https://phys.org/news/2005-09-world-built-in-wi-fi-enabled-d.... invalidates the patent. Nikonn CoolPix had wifi support in 2005. I'd imagine if you could select specific pictures to upload wherever from the device, that's the whole patent claim invalidated by 4 years. Hell, this article even references a device that Nikon offered to wirelessly transmit images as early as 2003. Find one of these, bring it to the law firm defending Gnome and that should invalidate the patent.

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
Kodak had consumer wifi support then too. They had military cameras with satellite upload capability even earlier.
bstrong 7y ago
I built a service around 2005 that did realtime photo sync and sharing from mobile devices. Here's a demo video from 2007 (the most relevant part is around 6:45): https://connectedsocialmedia.com/1163/sharpcast-demo-brings-simple-way-to-manage-photos/ https://connectedsocialmedia.com/1163/sharpcast-demo-brings-...
mrandish 7y ago
Unfortunately, the Nikon CoolPix would not serve as prior art because it does not appear to have these two elements of the patent. 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;
- t-writescode 7y ago
  How on earth can an obvious business practice be patented? “yes, I would like to patent the sale of a spade when you buy a rake”
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    I wouldn't consider providing customers who paid for rakes with shovels instead to be an "obvious business practice"...
    - RandomTisk 7y ago
      Reading comprehension fail.
      - ithkuil 7y ago
        filtering the plurality of semantic interpretations using a transfer criteria wherein the transfer criteria is a sensible interpretation of a respective natural language sentence within the plurality of semantic interpretations
        RandomTisk 7y ago
        Is that in a patent application for reading comprehension?
- leereeves 7y ago
  That sounds patenting facial recognition (among other things). Not a method for facial recognition, but the very idea of doing facial recognition. The patent system is so broken. It's as if drug companies, instead of patenting a specific treatment for cancer, were able to patent "treating cancer".
  - zaroth 7y ago
    It’s not patenting facial recognition. It’s patenting the specific use case of identifying a subset of images to transfer over the wireless link based on the subject of the image.
    - leereeves 7y ago
      Sorry, it seems I forgot to put the word "like" in there, as in similar to. I understand it's not patenting facial recognition in general, just in the specific case of using facial rec or other techniques (which the lawyers called transfer criteria/subject identification) to identify subjects of images before filtering by subject and transferring them wirelessly. I stand by the meaning of the simile though. There's nothing original enough to be patentable in that claim. A specific method for doing facial recognition should be patentable. "Use facial rec to identify individuals in images, then filter for specific individuals, then transfer those images" should not. If we allow patents on use cases, every use case will be patented and eventually the trolls will have a collection of patents that together cover the very idea of recognizing faces.
      - colonwqbang 7y ago
        Like parent said, the patent doesn't actually seem have anything to do with facial recognition. I read it as talking about images that have already been identified, by some unspecified process. The process could be facial recognition, but it could also just be the user herself manually identifying each image. I do agree that the patent is too unclear and broad, and that everything described must have been already known by 2008.
- stark3 7y ago
  So images are indexed by topic, theme, and individual. Sub-setting the transfer on any of those indexes violates the patent? There must be more to it.
payne92 7y ago
That's a good start, but there's more to claim 1: ...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. Invaliding prior art has to cover every single thing in the claim. (And my hunch is that it's out there).
- amelius 7y ago
  Perhaps some NASA software does this, considering the cost of sending each and every image?
- colonwqbang 7y ago
  Based on my understanding, the patent still needs to represent an "inventive step" from the prior art. Let's say you can show that A. Classifying images based on a (pre-existing?) identification; B. Filtering images based on classification; C. Wirelessly transmitting images were all known at the time. Then you could argue that a "person having ordinary skill in the art" would have known to combine A+B+C to solve the problem. Thus the prior art teaches the invention and the patent should be declared invalid.
  - pkilgore 7y ago
    This isn't wrong. But it's oversimplified and in practice in the US obviousness arguments have a low likelihood of success, lower if it gets too a jury trial. You are much better off defending again infringement suits with novelty arguments.
- GoblinSlayer 7y ago
  Shouldn't infringement match all claims too? SQL did filtering using transfer criteria 45 years ago.

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago

Kodak had consumer wifi support then too. They had military cameras with satellite upload capability even earlier.

bstrong 7y ago

I built a service around 2005 that did realtime photo sync and sharing from mobile devices. Here's a demo video from 2007 (the most relevant part is around 6:45): https://connectedsocialmedia.com/1163/sharpcast-demo-brings-simple-way-to-manage-photos/ https://connectedsocialmedia.com/1163/sharpcast-demo-brings-...

mrandish 7y ago

Unfortunately, the Nikon CoolPix would not serve as prior art because it does not appear to have these two elements of the patent. 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;

t-writescode 7y ago
How on earth can an obvious business practice be patented? “yes, I would like to patent the sale of a spade when you buy a rake”
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  I wouldn't consider providing customers who paid for rakes with shovels instead to be an "obvious business practice"...
  - RandomTisk 7y ago
    Reading comprehension fail.
    - ithkuil 7y ago
      filtering the plurality of semantic interpretations using a transfer criteria wherein the transfer criteria is a sensible interpretation of a respective natural language sentence within the plurality of semantic interpretations
      - RandomTisk 7y ago
        Is that in a patent application for reading comprehension?
leereeves 7y ago
That sounds patenting facial recognition (among other things). Not a method for facial recognition, but the very idea of doing facial recognition. The patent system is so broken. It's as if drug companies, instead of patenting a specific treatment for cancer, were able to patent "treating cancer".
- zaroth 7y ago
  It’s not patenting facial recognition. It’s patenting the specific use case of identifying a subset of images to transfer over the wireless link based on the subject of the image.
  - leereeves 7y ago
    Sorry, it seems I forgot to put the word "like" in there, as in similar to. I understand it's not patenting facial recognition in general, just in the specific case of using facial rec or other techniques (which the lawyers called transfer criteria/subject identification) to identify subjects of images before filtering by subject and transferring them wirelessly. I stand by the meaning of the simile though. There's nothing original enough to be patentable in that claim. A specific method for doing facial recognition should be patentable. "Use facial rec to identify individuals in images, then filter for specific individuals, then transfer those images" should not. If we allow patents on use cases, every use case will be patented and eventually the trolls will have a collection of patents that together cover the very idea of recognizing faces.
    - colonwqbang 7y ago
      Like parent said, the patent doesn't actually seem have anything to do with facial recognition. I read it as talking about images that have already been identified, by some unspecified process. The process could be facial recognition, but it could also just be the user herself manually identifying each image. I do agree that the patent is too unclear and broad, and that everything described must have been already known by 2008.
stark3 7y ago
So images are indexed by topic, theme, and individual. Sub-setting the transfer on any of those indexes violates the patent? There must be more to it.

payne92 7y ago

That's a good start, but there's more to claim 1: ...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. Invaliding prior art has to cover every single thing in the claim. (And my hunch is that it's out there).

amelius 7y ago
Perhaps some NASA software does this, considering the cost of sending each and every image?
colonwqbang 7y ago
Based on my understanding, the patent still needs to represent an "inventive step" from the prior art. Let's say you can show that A. Classifying images based on a (pre-existing?) identification; B. Filtering images based on classification; C. Wirelessly transmitting images were all known at the time. Then you could argue that a "person having ordinary skill in the art" would have known to combine A+B+C to solve the problem. Thus the prior art teaches the invention and the patent should be declared invalid.
- pkilgore 7y ago
  This isn't wrong. But it's oversimplified and in practice in the US obviousness arguments have a low likelihood of success, lower if it gets too a jury trial. You are much better off defending again infringement suits with novelty arguments.
GoblinSlayer 7y ago
Shouldn't infringement match all claims too? SQL did filtering using transfer criteria 45 years ago.