8 ms·

Amazon granted patent for taking photos against a white background

253 points by edandersen 12y ago

kbrower 12y ago
its seems to be a bit more specific than that
transfire 12y ago
So we can patent camera and lighting angles now?
- pasbesoin 12y ago
  This is similar to my reaction: A patent for a focal length and ISO setting? How is this innovative? Particular settings for otherwise standard set ups, do not seem to me to meet the bar. What's next: Patenting key strike patterns on our keyboards?
  - X4 12y ago
    happened already ;) remember the guy who patented smileys? (it was unapproved later) I don't know, am I morally wrong if I don't give a fu about patents, but honor and credit the original founder, IF I copy things? I mean like we've been thought in practice with CC
josephlord 12y ago
This appears to be the broadest claim at a quick glance. If you do at least one thing different to this I believe you would not be covered: 2. A studio arrangement, comprising: a background comprising a cyclorama; a front light source positioned in a longitudinal axis intersecting the background, the longitudinal axis further being substantially perpendicular to a surface of the background; an image capture position located between the background and the front light source in the longitudinal axis; an elevated platform positioned at a first distance from the elevated platform and between the image capture position and the background along the longitudinal axis, the front light source being directed toward the elevated platform; a first at least one rear light source positioned between the elevated platform and the background, the at least one rear light source directed towards the background; a second at least one rear light source positioned in a lateral axis intersecting the elevated platform and being substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis; at least one light shield positioned between the second at least one rear light source and the elevated platform, the at least one light shield configured to shield the elevated platform from light emitted directly from the second at least one rear light source from lighting an upper surface of the elevated platform; and wherein a top surface of the elevated platform reflects light emanating from the background such that the elevated platform appears a substantially similar color as the background and a rear edge of the elevated platform is substantially imperceptible to an image capture device positioned at the image capture position. Claim 1 (the only other independent claim) seems much narrower so that if you aren't using an 85mm lens AND some particular settings of the camera you wouldn't be covered. Note: I am not taking a position on the validity or use of this patent just that the title[0] of this thread seems to be something of an extreme simplification to me. [0] "Amazon granted patent for taking photos against a white background" (in case it changes).
- raverbashing 12y ago
  This looks like it's for product pictures Products are usually photographed against an "infinite background" (usually white)
- makomk 12y ago
  That's not necessarily true - thanks to the doctrine of equivalents, even if what you're doing doesn't fall under the literal scope of the patent claims you could still be infringing on it. (What's more, whether you're potentially infringing also depends on how exactly those limitations came to be in the patent claim.)
- maninalift 12y ago
  "positioned in a longitudinal axis intersecting" = "pointing at" obfuscation is the name of the game You wouldn't get away with horrendous babble like this in essay in any subject at any level of education.
- tripzilch 12y ago
  > an elevated platform positioned at a first distance from the elevated platform Anybody understand what this means? Something can't be at a distance from itself, so are there two platforms? (except the rest of the texts keep referring to "the platform", suggesting there is a unique single one)
rjdagost 12y ago
The abstract sounds far-reaching, but for patents the claims are what matter. And the claims of this patent are extremely narrow. It shouldn't be difficult to sidestep these. My general rule is that if you see specific numbers in the claims ("eighty-five millimeter lens", " configured with an ISO setting of about three hundred twenty", etc.) you probably have a pretty weak patent.
- tizzdogg 12y ago
  Would it be valid for me to submit my own patent application, with the exact same wording as amazon's, but substituting "50mm lens" in place of "85mm lens"? I dont know how patent law works, so I'm honestly asking.. if the narrowness of the claims makes it okay, wont we eventually end up with hundreds of patents covering the entire space of possible configurations?
  - notahacker 12y ago
    If valid, this would be a nice way of amassing a huge patent portfolio whilst spending very little on lawyers' fees (with the potential added benefit of exposing possible grounds for invalidating competing patents if you get your applications turned down)
  - euank 12y ago
    Patent law requires something to be "non-obvious". It cannot be a single step away from a previous patent. This patent would count as prior art for such an obvious change, and as such the patent you describe would not be valid or granted. Non-obvious is supposed to be a broad term, but in reality a patent examiner will just search through prior patents for prior art. In this case, if you really did copy everything else word for word, he or she would very quickly find the existing patent and deny you.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  The fact that they needed this configuration means they must have found prior art that discloses other configurations. The notion that this particular configuration would not have been "obvious to try" is ridiculous on its face. Weak patent or not, it should not have issued. Overcoming prior art through choosing a different set of standard lens settings, without any showing that a photographer of common skill would have not have tried those settings (IE they at least produce an unexpected result), is crazy
chrisBob 12y ago
Does anyone know why the defensive patents were eliminated? If Amazon is being honest with the goal of this then that would have been perfect.
- dnautics 12y ago
  defensive patents were not eliminated. There is still, for example, RPX corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPX_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPX_Corporation) which does "active" defensive patent protection in a for-profit model. What was, however, eliminated, was the Statutory Invetion Registration: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Statutory_Invention_Registration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Statutory_Inventi...) For this reason: "Since the adoption of the eighteen-month publication procedure, the use of SIR has decreased substantially, and the America Invents Act eliminated this tool for inventors." (http://www.aiarulemaking.com/rulemaking-topics/group-3/repeal-statutory-invention-registration.php http://www.aiarulemaking.com/rulemaking-topics/group-3/repea...)
afternooner 12y ago
I like how all the comments so far are defending the fact that the patent isn't quite as broad as the title suggests. Sure, they are patenting taking a picture against a white background when perpendicular against a... Who gives a fuck. This is a patent to take a picture against a whit background. There is no invention here. The only thing novel or unique is the fact is that some genius realized that with enough legal terms, you could patent a photo shoot. Shit America, get it together.
- ZenPro 12y ago
  Upvoted for being cuttingly accurate and making me laugh out loud. >> Sure, they are patenting taking a picture against a white background when perpendicular against a... Who gives a fuck. PMSL. Come work for me.
- polshaw 12y ago
  What strikes me about it is how pointless it is. Do we really believe Amazon are going to file a suit against anyone based on this patent?
  - ludamad 12y ago
    They can certainly counter-bully people using it, say if someone has a legitimate claim against Amazon, but happens to violate this patent.
    - salem 12y ago
      That is basically what it all boils down to. Patent as much as you can so you can defend yourself, and eventually make a cross-license deal that doesn't cost too much money. And just maybe, it might make you a little money. My personal favorite is the patent on a cell phone ringing and vibrating at the same time. For a long time most other phones would alternate.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  They do have this clause to try and expand the breadth of the claims: It should be emphasized that the above-described embodiments of the present disclosure are merely possible examples of implementations set forth for a clear understanding of the principles of the disclosure. Many variations and modifications may be made to the above-described embodiment(s) without departing substantially from the spirit and principles of the disclosure. All such modifications and variations are intended to be included herein within the scope of this disclosure and protected by the following claims. I am not a lawyer so do not know how much weight such clauses have, but it would seem to be trying for a lot more than just the specifically described arrangement.
fuckedup 12y ago
This stupidity need to be stopped ..
- camus2 12y ago
  Sorry, stupidiy stoppers ARE patented!
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    Is that why the bookcase keeps falling off the wall?
funkyy 12y ago
Its not about how narrow patent is - its still picture on white background. Such a picture with this specs might be done for art (picture art is huge part of modern culture) and afaik law prohibits patenting art... I feel sorry if anyone breaks the patent by mistake and will get nice letter from Google that they need to get rid of their picture...
- mrestko 12y ago
  Why would they get a letter from Google?
acomjean 12y ago
"image capture device equipped with an eighty-five millimeter lens, the at least one image capture device further configured with an ISO setting of about three hundred twenty and an f-stop value of about 5.6" crazy. But very specific in some ways. 85mm lens is a great lens for this stuff and portraits. I see sales of the 90mm tilt shit increasing.. The diagram shows a person as a product. There is a lot of prior art out there for a lot of lighting setups, often diagrammed. If you want to take better flash pictures may I humbly suggest http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/ http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/
neom 12y ago
My degree is in Digital Imaging Technology, I worked out of college for many years as the CEO of a film startup (stillmotion) that did quite well (way before I joined DigitalOcean). This disgusts me. Here are the idiots behind it(*potentially, as I've not talked to them, I can't confirm 100%): http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jeremy-sawatzky/6/8a/461 http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jeremy-sawatzky/6/8a/461 Gross gross gross gross.
- ansimionescu 12y ago
  This kind of public shaming needs to happen more often. Someone should build an anonymous (to avoid lawsuits) public index of assholes like these.
  - neom 12y ago
    It's not supposed to be a shaming, just important to see the people who submitted the patent. The most troubling thing is that this diagram: http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=08676045&homeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO2%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsearch-adv.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526d%3DPALL%2526S1%3D08676045%2526OS%3DPN%2F08676045%2526RS%3DPN%2F08676045&PageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=NONE&Input=View+first+page http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=08676045&homeurl=http%3A%... Depicts pretty standard butterfly/paramount lighting (less the lower reflector) that is taught in every college photography program in the world. I also worry that they appear to be photographers outside of their jobs at Amazon, what kind of a competitive advantage is this? I have no clue as I'm not a lawyer.
  - hnnewguy 12y ago
    >public index of assholes like these. It's hard for me to upset with these specific individuals, because I don't know their plans or agenda. In reality, if it wasn't them, at this point, it would be someone else at some other point. From that perspective, companies are almost forced to do this to protect themselves. What would happen if they were beat to the patent? All you can do is hope the the patent holder is the most benign option. The real idiots are the regulators. This system is broken.
mahdavi 12y ago
There are tons of prior art out there to invalidate this stupid patent. Wondering what lawyers at Amazon where thinking when they filed for this patent.
- bsenftner 12y ago
  They were thinking: more billable hours! Yay! What else can we patent?!
Zigurd 12y ago
From the detailed description, this is the problem they say they are solving: > Prior art solutions for achieving such a result for capturing images and/or video of objects set against a true white background include solutions that often involve some type of image retouching, post processing, "green screen" techniques, or other special effects and image and video manipulation to achieve the result of an object set against a true white background. Accordingly, as will be described herein, embodiments of the present disclosure provide a studio arrangement in which an object can be photographed and/or filmed, and the images and/or video captured by the camera achieve the effect noted above without any image manipulation due to the particular arrangements of the subject, camera, lighting and background. First of all, that's not true. You can buy various products on Amazon that do the thing they think they are solving. Secondly, while other people have noted that to fit the coverage of their claim #1, you would have to be using a particular length lens, etc. They are just describing a typical portrait studio configuration. There is nothing novel about the configuration they are describing. Not the focal length, not the aperture, not backlighting to prevent objects throwing shadows, etc. Not one novel problem or solution. The patent they refer to, 20030206735, is a patent for one such device, a lighting box. This patent refers to a previous Amazon patents for photographing against a white background. This previous patent appears even less novel and appears to be patenting lighting a backdrop to eliminate shadows. The other patents referred to seem to be irrelevant. While I doubt the lighting box patent is really novel, at least there is a thing they are patenting. Both Amazon patents are patenting an arrangement of bog standard lights, backdrops, and cameras, arranged in obvious ways. There is no invention, no thing in these patents. If you still had to make patent models, the model would be... nothing!
binocarlos 12y ago
Wow - cornflakes! (can we patent that?)
- Theodores 12y ago
  http://www.google.com/patents/US558393 http://www.google.com/patents/US558393
ZenPro 12y ago
Admittedly I only did a couple of years of law school before switching but... ...surely any evidence of prior use of the patent arrangement to the patent is a get-out clause for anyone being charged with infringement. I can claim originality of a printing press all I want right up until someone can prove a printing press as I designed it existed prior to my design. 90% of patent investigation is finding anything even remotely close to what you are being taken to court for infringing. I am certain a whole repository of photographs exist that used this setup prior to the patent filing.
- Zigurd 12y ago
  Of course. But there is a huge asymmetry in that issued patents are presumed to be valid. There is no burden on a plaintiff to prove their patent is valid. The defendant has to separately sue to invalidate, and that costs at least a few $100ks per patent. There should be an administrative process to invalidate patents and a bounty for successfully pursuing such actions.
  - darryl42 12y ago
    The number Adam Carolla keeps using for defending against the pod casting patent is 1.5M. So far he has spent 60k on trying to get the venue changed, since neither he nor the patent holder lives in east Texas.
  - dublinben 12y ago
    It would be even better if the patent application process was adversarial. There should be an-equally robust argument against the validity of the patent at every step of the process.
    - Zigurd 12y ago
      In theory, they're not called patent examiners for nothing. In practice, you can patent a white background.
a3n 12y ago
There's a small voice, way way in the back of my head, that's wondering if corporations are in the beginning of a campaign to reserve everything doable and expressable to themselves. That sounds ridiculous, except ... well, patents like this, and the apparent willingness of the Patent Office to grant anything that can be said on an application.
- mattdeboard 12y ago
  "beginning"?
  - a3n 12y ago
    Yes, beginning, I think it will get much worse. Currently people are still free to write and publish without paying rent to a patent holder. I don't think ycombinator, for example, is yet paying anyone other than their host/ISP to run this site. But you know someone is going to patent blogs, and web pages in general, they're gold nuggets just waiting to be picked up off the ground. We here are more aware of it because it's affecting us first. That the general public hasn't been directly affected and probably isn't really aware of what's happening also shows that it's only the beginning. Food is still free, as in libre. Anyone is free to raise their own chickens, vegetables and goats, notwithstanding zoning laws, and to trade seeds and stud services. Monsanto and their ilk are working hard to push self-reproducing seeds out of the food chain, and blanket the earth with Roundup so that only Roundup ready plants will live. I'm assuming animals, via cloning and mules, are in our near future.
- drawkbox 12y ago
  I believe the voice in the back of a head has been patented, you can't do that anymore without paying a royalty. Use your thoughts wisely.
- ISL 12y ago
  The silver lining to broad patents: very soon, all those broad patents are usable as prior art.
  - 12y ago
jestinjoy1 12y ago
I don't have any idea of US Patenting works. Its ok some idiots apply for patents like this. How it got accepted! Is it like I can say anything i like and got accepted!
iksilon 12y ago
Oh dear... I should have been a lawyer. I could troll for money, instead of wrecking my head with processing myoelectric signal on a mean 16MHz machine. [no offense to lawyers]
yawz 12y ago
The US patent system must be a money making scheme because it looks like (at least to my untrained eye) they're granting patents for anything. I thought the original idea was to patent inventions. Huh!
Lunatic666 12y ago
I'm always laughing my ass of when I read for which stupid shit you can get a patent in the U.S. If you seriously ask for a patent like this in Europe, they tell you to take your pills and get the fuck out of their office
mnicky 12y ago
Here's discussion on patents.stackexchange: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/6543/photography-lighting-amazon-issued-patent-prior-art-request http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/6543/photography-...
PaulHoule 12y ago
This reminds me of the application to the jp patent office on playing with a Kendama. The difference is that the jp office didn'nt approve it.
mantrax5 12y ago
How dare they describe a good way of getting even white background on photos so others can use it for a nominal (or no) fee? This kind of attitude that any patent is only filed so to be used for a lawsuit is part of the problem. What's wrong with patenting this method of taking photos for others to see and use? Has anyone contacted Amazon and asked if they license this patent and for how much? No. Let's hate.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Patents aren't supposed to protect descriptions, they're supposed to protect inventions.
woopdy 12y ago
Next up: patent for taking pictures with any device.
jimrandomh 12y ago
Primary Examiner: Blackman; Rochelle-Ann J. Other patents by the same examiner: http://patents.justia.com/examiner/rochelle-ann-j-blackman http://patents.justia.com/examiner/rochelle-ann-j-blackman It is the examiner's job to reject patents which aren't innovative, and that clearly hasn't happened here.
- josaka 12y ago
  It's also the examiner's job to narrow the scope of rights granted by a patent to accord with the amount of innovation present. The output isn't binary, and there's some utility in letting weaker filings through the system. An absurdly narrow patent that's impossible to infringe (often called a "glamour patent") still yields over $10k to the US treasury and avoids an extended and expensive fight by the government over rights, that at the end of the day, are of no value.
- krick 12y ago
  Funny. Looking at that list I start wondering how that really can happen. Yes, I know that jurisprudence is BS, there's no such thing as justice, etc., but really. I mean, looking at this list makes it so obvious that something isn't right, that I don't understand how she can have a job. That is, it couldn't be that examiner's work isn't overviewed/supervised by other instances, could it? If so, why Ms. Blackman haven't lost her job yet? Why nobody questioned her examination cases? Or maybe she is doing it right and it's only hard to understand if your brain isn't spoiled by law education? Can somebody explain?
  - u124556 12y ago
    Why nobody is showing concerns about her to the USPTO? Do US Government agencies have any politics about the general public concerned with the work of the individuals working there? What about other examiners?
    - sillysaurus3 12y ago
      Why nobody is showing concerns about her to the USPTO? This feels a little too close to being a witchhunt. Once we start talking about "why isn't the internet reporting these people to their employers?" the conversation has stopped being about ideas. EDIT: The concerns seem justified. I'm just saying that maybe we shouldn't be trying to use HN to organize the end of individual careers. Calling attention to the fact that this patent was examined by particular individuals seems ok. It's just a fact. Using HN as an organizational vehicle to help angry people on the internet get some specific people fired, by name, would be a troubling new trend for HN. We're a community, not a task force.
devinmontgomery 12y ago
Startup checklist item #378: Get some bullshit patents we don't even believe are valid to use defensively and/or pretend we have some protectable IP. Of all the things I don't want to spend time on, this is right up there.
kichu37 12y ago
This looks like it's for product pictures
surana90 12y ago
Even if you change the title to - "Amazon granted patent for taking photo in a particular way." It still sounds really bad.
atmosx 12y ago
Any plans to reform the patenting process?? Anyone???
wslh 12y ago
Just imagine what happens if you implement a One Click over a white bakckground!
HillOBeans 12y ago
I have noticed several comments mentioning prior art as a defense against absurd patents. With the recent passage of the America Invents Act, the United States is now a "first to file" country, not a "first to invent". If you do invent something new, you basically have only one year's time to get a patent application filed before running the risk of losing it to another filer (provided you have publicly demonstrated or sold your invention). Demonstrating that you invented the product first will do you no good. It is possible to extend this by a second year by filing a Provisional Patent Application (a much simpler, less expensive filing that only grants patent pending protection for a year until you file an official patent application). On the surface the AIA was intended to make obtaining patents easier for the layperson, but the expense of filing with the USPO actually makes it much more difficult for the lay inventor to defend themselves against a large entity with money and lawyers. It also encourages inventors to hide rather than demonstrate their ideas, lest someone else file a patent application first....
- jonathansizz 12y ago
  It would seem that switching to 'first to file' virtually guarantees that the USPTO patent backlog will get much bigger, as it encourages filing early and filing often.
- dnautics 12y ago
  > If you do invent something new, you basically have only one year's time to get a patent application filed before running the risk of losing it to another filer (provided you have publicly demonstrated or sold your invention). Demonstrating that you invented the product first will do you no good. Well the secondary filer would also have to implement it within the year, which for most things will not be so trivial. The more annoying thing about the AIA with regards to defensive patenting is the elimination of the SIR. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Statutory_Invention_Registration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Statutory_Inventi...
- noonespecial 12y ago
  First to file merely does away with the battles between inventors both trying to file for the same invention claiming and trying to prove that they invented it at some time prior to filing. First to file does not effect prior art and things that are already public domain. You can't just cruise on over to github and pick a FOSS project and be "first to file".
nopinsight 12y ago
I've long wondered if this is the result of measuring the Patent Office's staff productivity by the number of patents granted per staff or working hours. Higher 'productivity' by such metrics could lead to higher budget or promotional opportunities for their managers, for example. Such things would skew their processes and judgment to allow for more patents being granted, while benefiting most internal decision makers. If anyone knows the metrics/KPI used internally and by the governing body of the Patent Office, please let us know. It could help point to some ways to reform the system in the short term (without needing to go through Congress). We could create a proposal to reform the system by changing their internal KPI and penalize the Patent Office and individual examiners when too many of the patents they grant are not held up by court or judged by an independent committee to be inappropriate, for example. (The penalty should be strong enough to counterweight the benefits they gain from granting more patents.) This should not require Congress action and the Executive branch can start a reform quite quickly.
kileywm 12y ago
I have long understood the primary incentive to patent an idea is to protect research and development investments. It makes sense from the perspective that inventions can often be reverse engineered for a fraction of initial R&D cost. I could be wrong, but if I am not... how much R&D went into this little gem of photography 'innovation'.
31reasons 12y ago
Okay so this patent is for background color of RGB:1,1,1 Do they have patent for RGB:1,0.99,1 ?
VonGuard 12y ago
I get sick of people fretting over stupid patents. Take matters into your own hands and invalidate these fuckers. I think I found some prior art just Googling around: https://www.google.com/patents/US7177537?dq=automated+photography&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Rk1uU86FBsf4oASdsoDoDQ&ved=0CF8Q6AEwBg https://www.google.com/patents/US7177537?dq=automated+photog... Frankly, this patent is even broader than Amazon's, as it includes support for multiple background colors, and it allows for the lights to be anywhere, as opposed to some specific position Amazon delineated.
- crashandburn4 12y ago
  The thing I'd like to know is, is there anything that we can do for this? you found the prior art quickly, so it is clear that the patent should not be valid but is there anything citizens can do to point this out? is there any way of invalidating a patent once it's been awarded short of legal action? As far as I know there is no recourse other than legal action (which is incredibly costly) once a patent has been granted which I think is part of the problem of these ridiculous patents being granted in the first place.
- sinaa 12y ago
  Posting the patent here might be a good idea: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/6543/photography-lighting-amazon-issued-patent-prior-art-request http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/6543/photography-... Someone may eventually take a look at it.
damon_c 12y ago
Ha. the picture is the best part: http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=08676045&homeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO2%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsearch-adv.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526d%3DPALL%2526S1%3D08676045%2526OS%3DPN%2F08676045%2526RS%3DPN%2F08676045&PageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=NONE&Input=View+first+page http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=08676045&homeurl=http%3A%...
torbit 12y ago
From the verge comments by TheGage "Patent attorney’s like myself find these articles rather uninformed. Prosecuting a patent before the USPTO nearly always (+95%) involve an Office Action in which an Examiner at the USPTO searches the prior art and then presents one or more prior art based rejections. The job of the patent attorney is to argue the claims of the patent in terms of novelty and non-obviousness over the prior art. The file wrapper, which is available to anyone at this Government website who can complete the USPTO’s CAPTCHA and enter the US Patent No. (which is 8,676,045 for this patent), provides this dialog. In the prosecution history for this patent, you can see an Office Action (search “Non-Final Rejection” in the “Image File Wrapper” tab) and the patent attorney’s reply, prior to issuance of the patent. Now, I’ll be the first to admit that the Examiner’s often do not present the most likely or on point prior art, but to say that granting the patent doesn’t involve prior art is incorrect. We can debate whether a granted patent amounts to anything and a lot of that depends upon context. Finally, what so many get wrong (both journalists and the public) is that patent infringement hangs on the claims. That is, the claims define the scope of the invention. The detailed description/specification provides various examples in support of the claim. The Title is often vague due to case law imputing narrow title limitations into the claims (so never depend on the Title when exclaiming what someone has “patented”). In this patent, the claim is something like a page and half long, having over 7-8 features, each of which you would have to prove before a court that the alleged infringer has done in order to be awarded damages. Indeed, in reviewing the claims, Amazon hasn’t just patented “taking photos with a ‘near perfect’ white backdrop,” but according to the claim for Amazon’s patent, I would argue that Amazon patented a very involved and strictly defined way (the’re even ratios in the patent so avoiding infringement would be as easy as having slightly different ratios) by which to take photos with a “near perfect” white backdrop. Hope that helps. I know few patent attorney’s bother (and we’re a rare breed with only ~70K of us registered patent agents from the start of the patent system), and I’m probably wasting my time because it makes for less dramatic coverage, but I would like the anti-patent vibe on cites I otherwise enjoy to be less sensational and more informed. Best, MKG" http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/8/5696356/amazon-inexplicably-granted-patent-for-common-photography-flash-setup http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/8/5696356/amazon-inexplicably...
- DannyBee 12y ago
sitkack 12y ago
I am going to file a new patent for taking arbitrary volumetric images of objects placed inside virtually infinite integrating sphere [1] illuminated by arbitrary combinations of spectral emitters (polychromatic light sources). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrating_sphere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrating_sphere
Fasebook 12y ago
ITT: jelly
callesgg 12y ago
On the practical side: Does this mean that in the us legally speaking putting lights and camera like on the picture requires consent from amazon?

253 points by edandersen 12y ago

kbrower 12y ago

its seems to be a bit more specific than that

transfire 12y ago

So we can patent camera and lighting angles now?

pasbesoin 12y ago
This is similar to my reaction: A patent for a focal length and ISO setting? How is this innovative? Particular settings for otherwise standard set ups, do not seem to me to meet the bar. What's next: Patenting key strike patterns on our keyboards?
- X4 12y ago
  happened already ;) remember the guy who patented smileys? (it was unapproved later) I don't know, am I morally wrong if I don't give a fu about patents, but honor and credit the original founder, IF I copy things? I mean like we've been thought in practice with CC

josephlord 12y ago

This appears to be the broadest claim at a quick glance. If you do at least one thing different to this I believe you would not be covered: 2. A studio arrangement, comprising: a background comprising a cyclorama; a front light source positioned in a longitudinal axis intersecting the background, the longitudinal axis further being substantially perpendicular to a surface of the background; an image capture position located between the background and the front light source in the longitudinal axis; an elevated platform positioned at a first distance from the elevated platform and between the image capture position and the background along the longitudinal axis, the front light source being directed toward the elevated platform; a first at least one rear light source positioned between the elevated platform and the background, the at least one rear light source directed towards the background; a second at least one rear light source positioned in a lateral axis intersecting the elevated platform and being substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis; at least one light shield positioned between the second at least one rear light source and the elevated platform, the at least one light shield configured to shield the elevated platform from light emitted directly from the second at least one rear light source from lighting an upper surface of the elevated platform; and wherein a top surface of the elevated platform reflects light emanating from the background such that the elevated platform appears a substantially similar color as the background and a rear edge of the elevated platform is substantially imperceptible to an image capture device positioned at the image capture position. Claim 1 (the only other independent claim) seems much narrower so that if you aren't using an 85mm lens AND some particular settings of the camera you wouldn't be covered. Note: I am not taking a position on the validity or use of this patent just that the title[0] of this thread seems to be something of an extreme simplification to me. [0] "Amazon granted patent for taking photos against a white background" (in case it changes).

raverbashing 12y ago
This looks like it's for product pictures Products are usually photographed against an "infinite background" (usually white)
makomk 12y ago
That's not necessarily true - thanks to the doctrine of equivalents, even if what you're doing doesn't fall under the literal scope of the patent claims you could still be infringing on it. (What's more, whether you're potentially infringing also depends on how exactly those limitations came to be in the patent claim.)
maninalift 12y ago
"positioned in a longitudinal axis intersecting" = "pointing at" obfuscation is the name of the game You wouldn't get away with horrendous babble like this in essay in any subject at any level of education.
tripzilch 12y ago
> an elevated platform positioned at a first distance from the elevated platform Anybody understand what this means? Something can't be at a distance from itself, so are there two platforms? (except the rest of the texts keep referring to "the platform", suggesting there is a unique single one)

rjdagost 12y ago

The abstract sounds far-reaching, but for patents the claims are what matter. And the claims of this patent are extremely narrow. It shouldn't be difficult to sidestep these. My general rule is that if you see specific numbers in the claims ("eighty-five millimeter lens", " configured with an ISO setting of about three hundred twenty", etc.) you probably have a pretty weak patent.

tizzdogg 12y ago
Would it be valid for me to submit my own patent application, with the exact same wording as amazon's, but substituting "50mm lens" in place of "85mm lens"? I dont know how patent law works, so I'm honestly asking.. if the narrowness of the claims makes it okay, wont we eventually end up with hundreds of patents covering the entire space of possible configurations?
- notahacker 12y ago
  If valid, this would be a nice way of amassing a huge patent portfolio whilst spending very little on lawyers' fees (with the potential added benefit of exposing possible grounds for invalidating competing patents if you get your applications turned down)
- euank 12y ago
  Patent law requires something to be "non-obvious". It cannot be a single step away from a previous patent. This patent would count as prior art for such an obvious change, and as such the patent you describe would not be valid or granted. Non-obvious is supposed to be a broad term, but in reality a patent examiner will just search through prior patents for prior art. In this case, if you really did copy everything else word for word, he or she would very quickly find the existing patent and deny you.
DannyBee 12y ago
The fact that they needed this configuration means they must have found prior art that discloses other configurations. The notion that this particular configuration would not have been "obvious to try" is ridiculous on its face. Weak patent or not, it should not have issued. Overcoming prior art through choosing a different set of standard lens settings, without any showing that a photographer of common skill would have not have tried those settings (IE they at least produce an unexpected result), is crazy

chrisBob 12y ago

Does anyone know why the defensive patents were eliminated? If Amazon is being honest with the goal of this then that would have been perfect.

dnautics 12y ago
defensive patents were not eliminated. There is still, for example, RPX corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPX_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPX_Corporation) which does "active" defensive patent protection in a for-profit model. What was, however, eliminated, was the Statutory Invetion Registration: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Statutory_Invention_Registration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Statutory_Inventi...) For this reason: "Since the adoption of the eighteen-month publication procedure, the use of SIR has decreased substantially, and the America Invents Act eliminated this tool for inventors." (http://www.aiarulemaking.com/rulemaking-topics/group-3/repeal-statutory-invention-registration.php http://www.aiarulemaking.com/rulemaking-topics/group-3/repea...)

afternooner 12y ago

I like how all the comments so far are defending the fact that the patent isn't quite as broad as the title suggests. Sure, they are patenting taking a picture against a white background when perpendicular against a... Who gives a fuck. This is a patent to take a picture against a whit background. There is no invention here. The only thing novel or unique is the fact is that some genius realized that with enough legal terms, you could patent a photo shoot. Shit America, get it together.

ZenPro 12y ago
Upvoted for being cuttingly accurate and making me laugh out loud. >> Sure, they are patenting taking a picture against a white background when perpendicular against a... Who gives a fuck. PMSL. Come work for me.
polshaw 12y ago
What strikes me about it is how pointless it is. Do we really believe Amazon are going to file a suit against anyone based on this patent?
- ludamad 12y ago
  They can certainly counter-bully people using it, say if someone has a legitimate claim against Amazon, but happens to violate this patent.
  - salem 12y ago
    That is basically what it all boils down to. Patent as much as you can so you can defend yourself, and eventually make a cross-license deal that doesn't cost too much money. And just maybe, it might make you a little money. My personal favorite is the patent on a cell phone ringing and vibrating at the same time. For a long time most other phones would alternate.
lotsofmangos 12y ago
They do have this clause to try and expand the breadth of the claims: It should be emphasized that the above-described embodiments of the present disclosure are merely possible examples of implementations set forth for a clear understanding of the principles of the disclosure. Many variations and modifications may be made to the above-described embodiment(s) without departing substantially from the spirit and principles of the disclosure. All such modifications and variations are intended to be included herein within the scope of this disclosure and protected by the following claims. I am not a lawyer so do not know how much weight such clauses have, but it would seem to be trying for a lot more than just the specifically described arrangement.

fuckedup 12y ago

This stupidity need to be stopped ..

camus2 12y ago
Sorry, stupidiy stoppers ARE patented!
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  Is that why the bookcase keeps falling off the wall?

funkyy 12y ago

Its not about how narrow patent is - its still picture on white background. Such a picture with this specs might be done for art (picture art is huge part of modern culture) and afaik law prohibits patenting art... I feel sorry if anyone breaks the patent by mistake and will get nice letter from Google that they need to get rid of their picture...

mrestko 12y ago
Why would they get a letter from Google?

acomjean 12y ago

"image capture device equipped with an eighty-five millimeter lens, the at least one image capture device further configured with an ISO setting of about three hundred twenty and an f-stop value of about 5.6" crazy. But very specific in some ways. 85mm lens is a great lens for this stuff and portraits. I see sales of the 90mm tilt shit increasing.. The diagram shows a person as a product. There is a lot of prior art out there for a lot of lighting setups, often diagrammed. If you want to take better flash pictures may I humbly suggest http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/ http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/

neom 12y ago

My degree is in Digital Imaging Technology, I worked out of college for many years as the CEO of a film startup (stillmotion) that did quite well (way before I joined DigitalOcean). This disgusts me. Here are the idiots behind it(*potentially, as I've not talked to them, I can't confirm 100%): http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jeremy-sawatzky/6/8a/461 http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jeremy-sawatzky/6/8a/461 Gross gross gross gross.

ansimionescu 12y ago
This kind of public shaming needs to happen more often. Someone should build an anonymous (to avoid lawsuits) public index of assholes like these.
- neom 12y ago
  It's not supposed to be a shaming, just important to see the people who submitted the patent. The most troubling thing is that this diagram: http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=08676045&homeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO2%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsearch-adv.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526d%3DPALL%2526S1%3D08676045%2526OS%3DPN%2F08676045%2526RS%3DPN%2F08676045&PageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=NONE&Input=View+first+page http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=08676045&homeurl=http%3A%... Depicts pretty standard butterfly/paramount lighting (less the lower reflector) that is taught in every college photography program in the world. I also worry that they appear to be photographers outside of their jobs at Amazon, what kind of a competitive advantage is this? I have no clue as I'm not a lawyer.
- hnnewguy 12y ago
  >public index of assholes like these. It's hard for me to upset with these specific individuals, because I don't know their plans or agenda. In reality, if it wasn't them, at this point, it would be someone else at some other point. From that perspective, companies are almost forced to do this to protect themselves. What would happen if they were beat to the patent? All you can do is hope the the patent holder is the most benign option. The real idiots are the regulators. This system is broken.

mahdavi 12y ago

There are tons of prior art out there to invalidate this stupid patent. Wondering what lawyers at Amazon where thinking when they filed for this patent.

bsenftner 12y ago
They were thinking: more billable hours! Yay! What else can we patent?!

Zigurd 12y ago

From the detailed description, this is the problem they say they are solving: > Prior art solutions for achieving such a result for capturing images and/or video of objects set against a true white background include solutions that often involve some type of image retouching, post processing, "green screen" techniques, or other special effects and image and video manipulation to achieve the result of an object set against a true white background. Accordingly, as will be described herein, embodiments of the present disclosure provide a studio arrangement in which an object can be photographed and/or filmed, and the images and/or video captured by the camera achieve the effect noted above without any image manipulation due to the particular arrangements of the subject, camera, lighting and background. First of all, that's not true. You can buy various products on Amazon that do the thing they think they are solving. Secondly, while other people have noted that to fit the coverage of their claim #1, you would have to be using a particular length lens, etc. They are just describing a typical portrait studio configuration. There is nothing novel about the configuration they are describing. Not the focal length, not the aperture, not backlighting to prevent objects throwing shadows, etc. Not one novel problem or solution. The patent they refer to, 20030206735, is a patent for one such device, a lighting box. This patent refers to a previous Amazon patents for photographing against a white background. This previous patent appears even less novel and appears to be patenting lighting a backdrop to eliminate shadows. The other patents referred to seem to be irrelevant. While I doubt the lighting box patent is really novel, at least there is a thing they are patenting. Both Amazon patents are patenting an arrangement of bog standard lights, backdrops, and cameras, arranged in obvious ways. There is no invention, no thing in these patents. If you still had to make patent models, the model would be... nothing!

binocarlos 12y ago

Wow - cornflakes! (can we patent that?)

Theodores 12y ago
http://www.google.com/patents/US558393 http://www.google.com/patents/US558393

ZenPro 12y ago

Admittedly I only did a couple of years of law school before switching but... ...surely any evidence of prior use of the patent arrangement to the patent is a get-out clause for anyone being charged with infringement. I can claim originality of a printing press all I want right up until someone can prove a printing press as I designed it existed prior to my design. 90% of patent investigation is finding anything even remotely close to what you are being taken to court for infringing. I am certain a whole repository of photographs exist that used this setup prior to the patent filing.

Zigurd 12y ago
Of course. But there is a huge asymmetry in that issued patents are presumed to be valid. There is no burden on a plaintiff to prove their patent is valid. The defendant has to separately sue to invalidate, and that costs at least a few $100ks per patent. There should be an administrative process to invalidate patents and a bounty for successfully pursuing such actions.
- darryl42 12y ago
  The number Adam Carolla keeps using for defending against the pod casting patent is 1.5M. So far he has spent 60k on trying to get the venue changed, since neither he nor the patent holder lives in east Texas.
- dublinben 12y ago
  It would be even better if the patent application process was adversarial. There should be an-equally robust argument against the validity of the patent at every step of the process.
  - Zigurd 12y ago
    In theory, they're not called patent examiners for nothing. In practice, you can patent a white background.

a3n 12y ago

There's a small voice, way way in the back of my head, that's wondering if corporations are in the beginning of a campaign to reserve everything doable and expressable to themselves. That sounds ridiculous, except ... well, patents like this, and the apparent willingness of the Patent Office to grant anything that can be said on an application.

mattdeboard 12y ago
"beginning"?
- a3n 12y ago
  Yes, beginning, I think it will get much worse. Currently people are still free to write and publish without paying rent to a patent holder. I don't think ycombinator, for example, is yet paying anyone other than their host/ISP to run this site. But you know someone is going to patent blogs, and web pages in general, they're gold nuggets just waiting to be picked up off the ground. We here are more aware of it because it's affecting us first. That the general public hasn't been directly affected and probably isn't really aware of what's happening also shows that it's only the beginning. Food is still free, as in libre. Anyone is free to raise their own chickens, vegetables and goats, notwithstanding zoning laws, and to trade seeds and stud services. Monsanto and their ilk are working hard to push self-reproducing seeds out of the food chain, and blanket the earth with Roundup so that only Roundup ready plants will live. I'm assuming animals, via cloning and mules, are in our near future.
drawkbox 12y ago
I believe the voice in the back of a head has been patented, you can't do that anymore without paying a royalty. Use your thoughts wisely.
ISL 12y ago
The silver lining to broad patents: very soon, all those broad patents are usable as prior art.
- 12y ago

jestinjoy1 12y ago

I don't have any idea of US Patenting works. Its ok some idiots apply for patents like this. How it got accepted! Is it like I can say anything i like and got accepted!

iksilon 12y ago

Oh dear... I should have been a lawyer. I could troll for money, instead of wrecking my head with processing myoelectric signal on a mean 16MHz machine. [no offense to lawyers]

yawz 12y ago

The US patent system must be a money making scheme because it looks like (at least to my untrained eye) they're granting patents for anything. I thought the original idea was to patent inventions. Huh!

Lunatic666 12y ago

I'm always laughing my ass of when I read for which stupid shit you can get a patent in the U.S. If you seriously ask for a patent like this in Europe, they tell you to take your pills and get the fuck out of their office

mnicky 12y ago

Here's discussion on patents.stackexchange: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/6543/photography-lighting-amazon-issued-patent-prior-art-request http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/6543/photography-...

PaulHoule 12y ago

This reminds me of the application to the jp patent office on playing with a Kendama. The difference is that the jp office didn'nt approve it.

mantrax5 12y ago

How dare they describe a good way of getting even white background on photos so others can use it for a nominal (or no) fee? This kind of attitude that any patent is only filed so to be used for a lawsuit is part of the problem. What's wrong with patenting this method of taking photos for others to see and use? Has anyone contacted Amazon and asked if they license this patent and for how much? No. Let's hate.

icebraining 12y ago
Patents aren't supposed to protect descriptions, they're supposed to protect inventions.

woopdy 12y ago

Next up: patent for taking pictures with any device.

jimrandomh 12y ago

Primary Examiner: Blackman; Rochelle-Ann J. Other patents by the same examiner: http://patents.justia.com/examiner/rochelle-ann-j-blackman http://patents.justia.com/examiner/rochelle-ann-j-blackman It is the examiner's job to reject patents which aren't innovative, and that clearly hasn't happened here.

josaka 12y ago
It's also the examiner's job to narrow the scope of rights granted by a patent to accord with the amount of innovation present. The output isn't binary, and there's some utility in letting weaker filings through the system. An absurdly narrow patent that's impossible to infringe (often called a "glamour patent") still yields over $10k to the US treasury and avoids an extended and expensive fight by the government over rights, that at the end of the day, are of no value.
krick 12y ago
Funny. Looking at that list I start wondering how that really can happen. Yes, I know that jurisprudence is BS, there's no such thing as justice, etc., but really. I mean, looking at this list makes it so obvious that something isn't right, that I don't understand how she can have a job. That is, it couldn't be that examiner's work isn't overviewed/supervised by other instances, could it? If so, why Ms. Blackman haven't lost her job yet? Why nobody questioned her examination cases? Or maybe she is doing it right and it's only hard to understand if your brain isn't spoiled by law education? Can somebody explain?
- u124556 12y ago
  Why nobody is showing concerns about her to the USPTO? Do US Government agencies have any politics about the general public concerned with the work of the individuals working there? What about other examiners?
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    Why nobody is showing concerns about her to the USPTO? This feels a little too close to being a witchhunt. Once we start talking about "why isn't the internet reporting these people to their employers?" the conversation has stopped being about ideas. EDIT: The concerns seem justified. I'm just saying that maybe we shouldn't be trying to use HN to organize the end of individual careers. Calling attention to the fact that this patent was examined by particular individuals seems ok. It's just a fact. Using HN as an organizational vehicle to help angry people on the internet get some specific people fired, by name, would be a troubling new trend for HN. We're a community, not a task force.

devinmontgomery 12y ago

Startup checklist item #378: Get some bullshit patents we don't even believe are valid to use defensively and/or pretend we have some protectable IP. Of all the things I don't want to spend time on, this is right up there.

kichu37 12y ago

This looks like it's for product pictures

surana90 12y ago

Even if you change the title to - "Amazon granted patent for taking photo in a particular way." It still sounds really bad.

atmosx 12y ago

Any plans to reform the patenting process?? Anyone???

wslh 12y ago

Just imagine what happens if you implement a One Click over a white bakckground!

HillOBeans 12y ago

I have noticed several comments mentioning prior art as a defense against absurd patents. With the recent passage of the America Invents Act, the United States is now a "first to file" country, not a "first to invent". If you do invent something new, you basically have only one year's time to get a patent application filed before running the risk of losing it to another filer (provided you have publicly demonstrated or sold your invention). Demonstrating that you invented the product first will do you no good. It is possible to extend this by a second year by filing a Provisional Patent Application (a much simpler, less expensive filing that only grants patent pending protection for a year until you file an official patent application). On the surface the AIA was intended to make obtaining patents easier for the layperson, but the expense of filing with the USPO actually makes it much more difficult for the lay inventor to defend themselves against a large entity with money and lawyers. It also encourages inventors to hide rather than demonstrate their ideas, lest someone else file a patent application first....

jonathansizz 12y ago
It would seem that switching to 'first to file' virtually guarantees that the USPTO patent backlog will get much bigger, as it encourages filing early and filing often.
dnautics 12y ago
> If you do invent something new, you basically have only one year's time to get a patent application filed before running the risk of losing it to another filer (provided you have publicly demonstrated or sold your invention). Demonstrating that you invented the product first will do you no good. Well the secondary filer would also have to implement it within the year, which for most things will not be so trivial. The more annoying thing about the AIA with regards to defensive patenting is the elimination of the SIR. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Statutory_Invention_Registration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Statutory_Inventi...
noonespecial 12y ago
First to file merely does away with the battles between inventors both trying to file for the same invention claiming and trying to prove that they invented it at some time prior to filing. First to file does not effect prior art and things that are already public domain. You can't just cruise on over to github and pick a FOSS project and be "first to file".

nopinsight 12y ago

I've long wondered if this is the result of measuring the Patent Office's staff productivity by the number of patents granted per staff or working hours. Higher 'productivity' by such metrics could lead to higher budget or promotional opportunities for their managers, for example. Such things would skew their processes and judgment to allow for more patents being granted, while benefiting most internal decision makers. If anyone knows the metrics/KPI used internally and by the governing body of the Patent Office, please let us know. It could help point to some ways to reform the system in the short term (without needing to go through Congress). We could create a proposal to reform the system by changing their internal KPI and penalize the Patent Office and individual examiners when too many of the patents they grant are not held up by court or judged by an independent committee to be inappropriate, for example. (The penalty should be strong enough to counterweight the benefits they gain from granting more patents.) This should not require Congress action and the Executive branch can start a reform quite quickly.

kileywm 12y ago

I have long understood the primary incentive to patent an idea is to protect research and development investments. It makes sense from the perspective that inventions can often be reverse engineered for a fraction of initial R&D cost. I could be wrong, but if I am not... how much R&D went into this little gem of photography 'innovation'.

31reasons 12y ago

Okay so this patent is for background color of RGB:1,1,1 Do they have patent for RGB:1,0.99,1 ?

VonGuard 12y ago

I get sick of people fretting over stupid patents. Take matters into your own hands and invalidate these fuckers. I think I found some prior art just Googling around: https://www.google.com/patents/US7177537?dq=automated+photography&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Rk1uU86FBsf4oASdsoDoDQ&ved=0CF8Q6AEwBg https://www.google.com/patents/US7177537?dq=automated+photog... Frankly, this patent is even broader than Amazon's, as it includes support for multiple background colors, and it allows for the lights to be anywhere, as opposed to some specific position Amazon delineated.

crashandburn4 12y ago
The thing I'd like to know is, is there anything that we can do for this? you found the prior art quickly, so it is clear that the patent should not be valid but is there anything citizens can do to point this out? is there any way of invalidating a patent once it's been awarded short of legal action? As far as I know there is no recourse other than legal action (which is incredibly costly) once a patent has been granted which I think is part of the problem of these ridiculous patents being granted in the first place.
sinaa 12y ago
Posting the patent here might be a good idea: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/6543/photography-lighting-amazon-issued-patent-prior-art-request http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/6543/photography-... Someone may eventually take a look at it.

damon_c 12y ago

Ha. the picture is the best part: http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=08676045&homeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO2%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsearch-adv.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526d%3DPALL%2526S1%3D08676045%2526OS%3DPN%2F08676045%2526RS%3DPN%2F08676045&PageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=NONE&Input=View+first+page http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=08676045&homeurl=http%3A%...

torbit 12y ago

From the verge comments by TheGage "Patent attorney’s like myself find these articles rather uninformed. Prosecuting a patent before the USPTO nearly always (+95%) involve an Office Action in which an Examiner at the USPTO searches the prior art and then presents one or more prior art based rejections. The job of the patent attorney is to argue the claims of the patent in terms of novelty and non-obviousness over the prior art. The file wrapper, which is available to anyone at this Government website who can complete the USPTO’s CAPTCHA and enter the US Patent No. (which is 8,676,045 for this patent), provides this dialog. In the prosecution history for this patent, you can see an Office Action (search “Non-Final Rejection” in the “Image File Wrapper” tab) and the patent attorney’s reply, prior to issuance of the patent. Now, I’ll be the first to admit that the Examiner’s often do not present the most likely or on point prior art, but to say that granting the patent doesn’t involve prior art is incorrect. We can debate whether a granted patent amounts to anything and a lot of that depends upon context. Finally, what so many get wrong (both journalists and the public) is that patent infringement hangs on the claims. That is, the claims define the scope of the invention. The detailed description/specification provides various examples in support of the claim. The Title is often vague due to case law imputing narrow title limitations into the claims (so never depend on the Title when exclaiming what someone has “patented”). In this patent, the claim is something like a page and half long, having over 7-8 features, each of which you would have to prove before a court that the alleged infringer has done in order to be awarded damages. Indeed, in reviewing the claims, Amazon hasn’t just patented “taking photos with a ‘near perfect’ white backdrop,” but according to the claim for Amazon’s patent, I would argue that Amazon patented a very involved and strictly defined way (the’re even ratios in the patent so avoiding infringement would be as easy as having slightly different ratios) by which to take photos with a “near perfect” white backdrop. Hope that helps. I know few patent attorney’s bother (and we’re a rare breed with only ~70K of us registered patent agents from the start of the patent system), and I’m probably wasting my time because it makes for less dramatic coverage, but I would like the anti-patent vibe on cites I otherwise enjoy to be less sensational and more informed. Best, MKG" http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/8/5696356/amazon-inexplicably-granted-patent-for-common-photography-flash-setup http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/8/5696356/amazon-inexplicably...

DannyBee 12y ago

sitkack 12y ago

I am going to file a new patent for taking arbitrary volumetric images of objects placed inside virtually infinite integrating sphere [1] illuminated by arbitrary combinations of spectral emitters (polychromatic light sources). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrating_sphere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrating_sphere

Fasebook 12y ago

ITT: jelly

callesgg 12y ago

On the practical side: Does this mean that in the us legally speaking putting lights and camera like on the picture requires consent from amazon?